Mr. Chairman, before I deal with the other matters with which I wish to deal, I should at this stage want to raise two matters which were raised in the debate yesterday. Firstly, there was an endeavour by a number of hon. members, of whom the hon. member for Verwoerdburg was the leading figure, to construe what had been said by one hon. member of this House as casting doubt upon the attitude of this party towards Swapo. I should like to make it quite clear what our attitude is towards Swapo, and this is not my personal opinion. This is my party’s opinion. We regard Swapo as an enemy who is using violence in order to obtain political power, and it is therefore the enemy of the Defence Force and the enemy of the people of South Africa. That is very simple. [Interjections.] They lay mines and they ambush our soldiers … [Interjections.]

Order!

They kill, maim and abduct civilians, and as far as we are concerned they have to be fought and are to be regarded as an enemy. There is no question about it. [Interjections.]

Our attitude is that anybody who wants to participate in a free and fair election without violence in South West Africa is welcome to do so, but we want to have no truck with people who want to use violence, who want to kill our people, who want to abduct other leaders and who indulge in activities of this nature. I hope that that puts an end to the matter now. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to know from the hon. member for Yeoville whether he therefore repudiates the statements made by that other hon. member.

All I am doing, Mr. Chairman, is to state the policy of my party. I want to put it very clearly to prevent any misunderstanding in respect of this matter. I must say that I find it regrettable that an effort is now being made to drag this kind of thing into the debate, when I had hoped that the discussions here would be kept at a high level. [Interjections.]

It was Cronjé and Hulley who started it all. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the second point I should like to make is a very delicate point. The reason why I say it is a delicate point is well-known to you, Sir. That is that I cannot comment on remarks allegedly made by an hon. member on the border, because I did not hear those remarks. I have made inquiries and I am told that the allegations are disputed. I should like, however, to make one very simple point. When we go as a group of Parliamentarians on joint visits of this nature, visits which are actually co-operative efforts and which are, I believe, in the interests of South Africa, and anybody subsequently quotes here in the House or in public what might or might not be an unguarded remark by an hon. member, it jeopardizes the whole concept of such visits. I hope the hon. the Minister will back me in this regard. I want to point out that if I should want to quote remarks that other hon. members have made in order to embarrass them, I could perhaps also succeed. One thing of which I am sure, however, is that nobody in this House can ever say that I have referred to any private conversation of that nature even though it may embarrass people. I believe that is the principle on which we went to the border, and I hope that we will be able to continue to go to the border. [Interjections.]

My next point is again in connection with what was construed from what an hon. member intended. That is the question of the demilitarization of people. One of the things that has been worrying us—I say this because I know that the Chief of the Defence Force knows of my concern about this matter—is that there has been, I believe, a very serious theft of Defence Force equipment and that this equipment can be used for ulterior motives. We have had evidence in this connection. We had it again yesterday, evidence that Defence Force equipment had been stolen and appropriated for use by what I regard as illegal organizations. I fear for the safety of equipment that may be used by terrorists either on the right or on the left. I therefore make the appeal—and that is the intention of what we wanted to do—that two things should happen. The first is that we should look again to make sure that our equipment, our arms and our ammunition, is absolutely safe and cannot be purloined by people who want to use it for illegal and terror methods. I think everybody in this House will agree with me on that. Secondly, I believe that we must have the greatest degree of control over the equipment that must be in the hands of people. Some equipment, arms and ammunition must be in the hands of, for example, commando’s and people of that sort, and we have to exercise strict control and discipline to see that there is no possible abuse of this equipment. I am confident that in that view I have the backing of the hon. the Minister and of the Chief of the Defence Force because we cannot allow this kind of abuse to take place.

There are a number of matters to which I should like to refer briefly. Some of them are small and some of them are large. Let me start with a small one.

There is a tendency to send out circulars when people are called up for duty on the border and in these circulars is enclosed a form of will and people are told to make a will. Some of the people are getting a little tired because every time when they are called up they are being reminded of the fact that they must make a will. Psychologically I do not think it is a good idea. I think the function as to whether people should make wills or not is the function of lawyers, parents, wives or relations and, with great respect, I think that we should do away with that procedure and I commend this to the hon. the Minister.

Secondly, I raise with him something which has appeared in the newspapers. It is that the Defence Force seems to have acquired a large amount of property and it appears to be building in the Wonderboom area. One report states that thousands of hectares of land have been bought at Buffelsfontein, Klipdrif, Murrayhill and Wallmannsthal areas. One newspaper in banner headlines on the front page referred to “Die Weermag se nuwe tuiste”.

*The hon. member for Roodeplaat features in this. This is followed by a full report on the matter.

Leave me alone.

I think it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to tell us now what is really happening there, what their plans are and what is being done in that respect.

†There is another matter to which I want to refer and which I do not want to let pass. A former Deputy Minister of Defence said that he would go into the question of the group life insurance scheme for old Air Force people. It still has not been satisfactorily settled. I only have a moment to mention it, but I do not want this debate to pass without my again having mentioned it. I am sure that the hon. member for Durban Point supports me in this regard. The hon. the Minister must please do something about these people who have served him well. The way that one treats people who have served one well in the past is the way that the present generation looks at as to how they will be treated in the future.

The next matter that I want to deal with is the White Paper. We have not had a White Paper this year. We perhaps understand the circumstances why not, but we would ask the hon. the Minister to see that we shall have a White Paper on defence tabled next year.

Then I want to deal with the question of the Air Force in particular. In my opinion we paid a very instructive visit to the Air Force. They were very co-operative, and I must tell hon. members that I think the Air Force is top class. They are first-class men; the equipment is kept in good condition; they are alert and I think they know what they are doing. However, the thing that worries me is that we have to keep up to date in the light of the type of the equipment that is going to be sent into the neighbouring territories. When I look at the expenditure allocated in this budget for the Air Force, I hope that next year the hon. the Minister will be able to come to me and say that I must come and look at some of the new things they are doing and what they are doing to keep one step ahead of our enemies in this field. There is no doubt that there is going to be an increase in more sophisticated weaponry that will be used against us. I know the difficulties; I know the problems and I am aware of the boycott. I am fully aware of these things, but where there is a will there is a way. We must see to it that the equipment of our Air Force keeps completely abreast with modern developments and modern technologies and is able to meet anything that can be used against it. I have indicated my view on this because I think it is important.

I want to end on a very simple note. In a pamphlet that is issued in connection with counter-insurgency, a pamphlet called “Teeninsurgensie: ’n Lewenswyse”, it states as follows—

*I believe that the hon. the Minister is trying to get that co-operation, and I can assure him that he will get it from us as well. To fight this onslaught successfully, it is essential to co-operate. In the same pamphlet the following also appears in connection with the political leader and the authorities … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that I have very great respect for his standpoint and I say this in consequence of what he had to say about his party’s standpoint on Swapo. The hon. member has a logical and valid standpoint, but we do not feel that his assertion that he was convinced that what members of his party said in connection with certain defence matters was not true, is an adequate answer. Some members of his party adopt an illogical standpoint, as was reflected in this debate by, inter alia, the hon. member for Constantia. This hon. member said that when it came to fighting Swapo as a satellite organization of communism, he would be prepared to cut his tongue out before he encouraged anyone to do duty on the border. This is a very elastic standpoint. [Interjections.] Before he tried to persuade anyone to fight for apartheid, he said he would cut his own tongue out. The fight on the border is against Swapo and has nothing to do with apartheid. The hon. members opposite contradict each other and the public will no longer put up with this kind of double-talk. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister submitted his report to this House and, inter alia, sounded the warning that the danger of the general onslaught was increasing in severity and intensity. He also made a friendly offer in connection with points of communication which he was prepared to establish to the advantage of representatives, where enquiries and representations could receive immediate attention. We greatly appreciate this and wish to thank him for it. If I cannot do this on behalf of this entire House, I should nevertheless like to make the hon. Minister an offer on behalf of this side of the House, viz. that we are prepared to make points of communication in the various areas in which we have to act as leaders available to him and his department. The points of communication I have in mind, will be particularly aimed at helping the hon. the Minister to get through to the general public without having to resort to the law to prepare them better for the situation to which he referred, i.e. a situation which is becoming more serious, more difficult and extremely dangerous. In this connection I am thinking in particular of hon. members of this House and leaders in the various communities. We are prepared to make such points of communication available to the hon. the Minister and I wonder whether it would not be feasible to persuade the Defence Force’s senior officials to enlighten the general public in this way. Perhaps in this way we can help mothers so that they need not shed tears with their sons when they have to leave home to do their border duty, but can say to them: “We are proud of you, the future of our country and our nation will possibly be built on your sacrifices.” Let them rather adopt this approach than shed tears with them. On the other hand we must try to motivate the fathers at the auction pens, or wherever they may be, to tell their friends: “It is all very well to discharge your obligations to your family and to claim certain benefits and comforts for yourself, but it is also your duty to serve your fatherland with honour and responsibility.” There are fathers who say they do not feel like undertaking commando, reservist or civil defence duties, because they are in the process of buying their second Mercedes Benz, building a swimming pool or purchasing some luxury item or other. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the time has come for great and small in this country to understand, in the spirit of his warning, that if they want to enjoy having their second Mercedes Benz, the swimming pool or 300 head of cattle, they must ensure that their fatherland remains unscathed. Otherwise they cannot enjoy those benefits and luxuries. This is a very serious matter. It is a priority we must make finally and plainly clear to the general public. It is not additional and superficial facilities that we are concerned with here, but in the final analysis the preservation of our own fatherland. Anyone who sees this in a different light, believes in a half truth. I repeat that we must offer the hon. the Minister these points of communication on behalf of this entire House to help him to motivate the general public better. He is restricted by the powers of the law, but we can go a little further than that. We can help him on moral, national and other grounds to make this front stronger, firmer and more reliable.

In the second place I again want to advocate something I have already mentioned in this House. The department of the hon. the Minister in co-operation with the Department of National Education should give serious consideration to establishing special military high schools in every province. This is a long-term prospect, and it is at such schools that we can prepare our youth to accept military discipline, responsibility and duties as a normal part of their lives. Then two years’ compulsory military training need not be forced down their throats. The older nations in Europe have had such schools for decades. It is from these training grounds that we can draw our officers, cadet teachers and other forces in the long term. These schools must offer an ordinary national matriculation certificate with civics, military traditions and background as well as training in the handling of dogs, horses and the like. Uniforms must be worn at these schools. As I did before, I wish to make a serious plea to the hon. the Minister on this matter. It should be gone into again, as I think the times demand it of us and the past inclines us in that direction. Our own past and that of other older European nations point us in that direction.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the hon. member for Yeoville in regard to the Air Force Group Pension Scheme. We were both involved in this matter for a very long time. Members of the Permanent Force contributed for many years. Admittedly, the insurers had the right, somewhere in the fine print, to amend the provisions unilaterally, which they did. Now the cover on which people had banked throughout their serving life has suddenly disappeared. I would be grateful if we could get further information on that.

The hon. member for Jeppe yesterday held a roll-call of servicemen amongst members on that side of the House. I should like to tell him that six of the eight hon. members in this party have had military service, three in the last war—one at the age of 13 years—one in the Navy and later in the operational area of South West Africa as a commando commandant. There is also a naval lieutenant. I myself was a lieutenant and am now a rifleman. [Interjections.] So we are not ashamed of the record of this party.

You count for two.

When my time expired yesterday I was dealing with the question of travel concessions, a matter which was subsequently taken up by the hon. member for Berea, if I remember correctly. I had started to thank the hon. the Minister for his letter of July this year, advising me that the whole question of travel concessions was under consideration and that an intensive investigation had been launched to determine how many people were involved, the type of transport to be used, departure points, etc. I want to say that I am extremely disappointed, however, at the South African Railways’ attitude towards this matter over the years. This is something about which I have been conducting correspondence for at least the last three years with successive Ministers of Transport. The attitude of the Railways is a blanket rejection of any form of concession at all. On each occasion they refer the matter back to the Department of Defence, saying that if concessions are required it is for the Department of Defence to make those concessions. Frankly, I do not think that even the concession suggested by the hon. member for Berea would be of very much use. I am referring to the stand-by half-fare, and I say this because at weekends it is very seldom that one can get onto the aircraft which would have to be taken by servicemen on week-end passes. Even members of Parliament cannot get onto aircraft. I myself cannot get a seat this afternoon—I have to leave at lunchtime—because there is not a seat available on the afternoon flight. This is the position at most weekends. Consequently that suggestion will not help. The hon. the Minister will remember that about a year ago, when he was still Chief of the SADF, we corresponded about this problem and about the difficulties servicemen had over weekends. At the time a system of long weekends every month or every two months was then evolved. This would allow for planning ahead and for the arrangement of transport. That seemed to work for a while, but it seems to be only certain camps that are still adopting that system today. Under that system, a person can know that on a certain date—the requirements of the Force naturally permitting, because we always have to accept that the Army has first claim—transport will be needed and forward planning can be done. There are bus companies that provide reasonably priced weekend facilities, I know, from the Transvaal to Durban and the Free State. Such weekends could therefore be planned ahead. There cannot, however, be such forward planning for short two-day weekends. The system of long weekends did, on the other hand, make it possible for travel arrangements to be made.

One particular problem area is the Upington camp. The Airways do not have a direct connection, and because there is no direct connection national servicemen have to pay for the two legs of their trip separately, because the plane they can catch for their weekends does not link up. Their journey is therefore regarded as a broken journey and they have to stay over in Johannesburg. These are practical problems that I believe we should try to get sorted out. I will not take it any further because I know that the hon. the Minister is aware of the situation. I do want to get it on record, though, that this is indeed something that worries parents. We must try to keep them from hitch-hiking in the normal way. “Ride Safe” works to a large extent, but they still hitch-hike with unreliable transport. The accidents which happen in this regard are most unfortunate and regrettable.

There are just one or two other issues of detail I wish to raise. The hon. the Minister will remember that during the Post Office Budget debate the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications undertook to provide public telephones. I should like to remind the hon. the Minister that he undertook to investigate where they were required and to get this service approved.

The next point I was going to deal with I shall drop because the hon. member for Yeoville has dealt with it. That concerns the question of the control of arms and explosives. This is something which I think concerns everybody. There have been a number of thefts of arms both in South West Africa and here. It appeared again in evidence in a recent case I cannot now refer to that arms are supplied even for things like faction-fighting.

This goes hand in hand with another matter that worries me. Arising from the evidence in that case, which was published there is an apparent mental attitude amongst some of those involved which, if it is wide-spread, presents a serious problem for the Defence Force in South Africa. That is the commitment to violence and the urge to seek violence irrespective of whether it is legal or not. I should like the hon. the Minister either to tell us what is being done to counter this or to arrange for it to be countered in due course.

Another matter of detail concerns what I believe to be false economy. Military people, quite often fairly senior officers like captains and even majors, when travelling to conferences, meetings and so on, have to travel by train. They have to travel for instance from Durban to Cape Town to attend, say, a conference lasting three to four hours. They have to travel there and back by train which takes them away from work for a whole week. If one considers their salaries and allowances for that week and one takes the difference between the rail fare and the air fare, it would be far better for them to fly, but the regulations lay down that only officers of a certain rank may fly. The lower ranks then have to spend a week of their time getting to and from a conference. I believe that this is false economy and that we should look at this again.

Another matter I want to touch on in passing is one I have corresponded with the hon. the Minister about. I refer to the question of funeral allowances for national servicemen who have private funerals. The amount allowed is R140, because that is the contract price. I accept that. I am not arguing the case any more, because it is logical. However, I feel that when parents are offered the option of a military funeral or a private funeral, they should be told what the allowance will be in the event of a private funeral so that they do not discover afterwards—I have had cases like this brought to my attention—that, while the funeral cost R1 000, they got only R140 refunded to them. If they settled for a military funeral, it would have cost them nothing. The position in this regard is not always understood.

The last point I want to deal with is the question of recreational and leisure-time facilities on the border. The Chief of the SADF sent me a letter about this and the details are gratifying to note. It sets out the number of newspapers and periodicals made available and the amount of money spent on facilities for volley-ball, on swimming pools, etc. I do not have the time to deal with it all, but it is to the credit of the fund and its handling. However, there is one shortcoming which I should like to raise, viz. that Citizen Force units which are called up for camps of three months, should be made aware of the procedures for applying and getting these facilities. What happens is that they go out there, have to spend their own unit funds for dart-boards, volley-ball equipment, etc., while these things are in fact available if they knew the procedures for applying for them. It would be simple to get an order out to all Citizen Force units, together with the orders calling them up for border camps, to let them know what the procedures are, how to apply in advance for their requirements so that they can have a share in the approximately R½ million which is allocated annually for the welfare of our soldiers. These matters, and others which I shall not raise now are, I know, matters of detail, but also matters which affect the day to day life and the morale of the Forces. I shall be grateful to hear the hon. the Minister’s reaction to that.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my thanks and appreciation to hon. members on both sides of this House for the high level of debating which was maintained during the discussion of this Vote. The discussion covered a very wide spectrum, and quite a number of positive suggestions were made, to which I shall react. The speeches of hon. members bore witness to thorough preparation and a particular interest in defence. As I have already said, defence is of national importance to me. It should stand above our own interests and political rivalry. I therefore wish to thank hon. members for the calm and pleasant atmosphere in which the debate took place throughout. In my previous capacity I had the privilege of attending a number of debates on defence, and hon. members will know that the debates were not always peaceful. It may be that I shall still become involved in serious differences of opinion with hon. members on the opposite side of this House in future, and if this should happen, I hope that, as in the past, we can solve our differences in a very responsible manner and will not allow the country’s Defence Force and our national security to suffer.

Against this background I want to begin with the hon. member for Constantia. It is quite clear to me that he did not listen to my introductory speech and that he is out of step with the standpoints of certain hon. members of his party. I do not wish to say anything further about this, except to say that I fully support what the hon. member for Verwoerdburg said in this connection.

†As far as the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned, throughout his speech he made it abundantly clear to the enemies of South Africa that we as a nation are united in the defence of our country. I can only hope that the enemies of South Africa will take heed of the fact that we as a Parliament are committed to the security of South Africa, irrespective of our party affiliations. I fully subscribe to the point that patriotism should be the overriding motivating factor of our soldiers. The speech by the hon. member fully deserves the appreciation expressed by various hon. members on this side, and I wish to associate myself with those sentiments.

The question of the exchange of Sapper Van der Mescht is a very delicate matter and I am sure the hon. member will not take it amiss if I do not elaborate.

*The hon. member for Yeoville reacted to visits paid to the border. I should like to add the following to the remarks made by the hon. member for Yeoville. Regarding the question of opinions expressed and remarks made by hon. members during visits, I agree that both sides ought to deal with these things in confidence and should not make use of them for political gain. However, I wish to make an appeal to hon. members to act in a responsible way and not to pass remarks which could give offence or are open to misinterpretation. I believe that hon. members on both sides of this House welcome joint visits and briefings where they can speak openly to one another. It would be a pity if we had to put a stop to this as a result of irresponsible behaviour.

†The hon. member also referred to the question of defence equipment that is being stolen. We are investigating this matter and I fully agree with him that we cannot allow this sort of thing to happen whether it be the left radicals or the right radicals who are responsible for it. The SADF is at present investigating the situation as well as the control of certain items, rifles or weapon systems to see how we can improve the control of these items.

*As for the matter of wills, I am in complete agreement with him. I think if a man has to go to the border and then receives an administrative reminder asking whether his will is up to date or not, he will eventually become nervous of receiving this sort of reminder. I agree with him. These are administrative problems and we shall have to see about rectifying this matter.

The hon. member also referred to possible extensions at Wallmannsthal or Roodeplaat. The Defence Force has owned a piece of training ground in that area for a number of years now. The Defence Headquarters are not going to be moved to that site. This is the kind of rumour which is being spread. The ground is at present being used for training. The future utilization of that ground has not yet been accurately determined. It is still in the planning stage. Actually I want to put it in this way: Mobilization depots or something of that nature will probably be constructed there. This is land which is going to be used in the long term, in other words not for short-term development.

Both the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Durban Point referred to the question of a life insurance scheme for the Air Force. I want to point out that this insurance scheme is not the first to be cancelled. The Army’s scheme and the Navy’s scheme were cancelled and therefore we should perhaps give consideration to three schemes instead of one. Possibly we should consider all three schemes with enthusiasm to see if we can rectify matters. I must point out that the staff organizations of those branches of the Defence Force entered into these insurance schemes with the insurance companies concerned. In other words, they were completely private contracts which were entered into and the State was never involved. I have investigated the matter personally because I have a great deal of sympathy for the people involved. I wanted to see if we could rectify this matter, but it is virtually impossible. There is nothing I can do about it. As regards the Air Force scheme, however, the insurance company concerned has allocated certain money to alleviate the position a little for some of the members of the scheme. But whether we can rectify the scheme is a different matter altogether. I think the only action that can now be taken is for them to submit a petition to Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. the Minister proceeds, may I put a question to him? He has just raised the question of a petition to Parliament to deal with these people. Could we do this on an all-party basis so that the Select Committee on Pensions could deal with all these petitioners together without the petitions having to come from either one party or the other? Would the hon. the Minister support that?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would support that.

As far as the question of a White Paper is concerned, my reply is that a White Paper will be published next year. The hon. member also referred to the provision of finances for the Air Force.

*Mr. Chairman, I think that the making available of money to the S.A. Defence Force, in as far as it relates to the threat, is a complex problem. In this regard one must not of course take only the Air Force in consideration, but all the other branches of the Defence Force as well, especially when it comes to the sophisticated equipment which is required to withstand this onslaught. I therefore agree wholeheartedly with the statement the hon. member made. We cannot allow our enemies to have more sophisticated equipment at their disposal than that which our own Defence Force has. What we should do then is to undertake an investigation against the background of the matter in its entirety to see whether or not the funds which are being allocated to the Defence Force, are adequate. The internal distribution of available funds, i.e. the distribution of the funds between the Army, the Air Force and the Navy, in order of priority, is a departmental matter. Therefore, to concentrate on only one branch could cause a misconception to arise which could create the impression that one specific branch of the Defence Force is not getting enough money. The plea made by the hon. member in this regard is just as applicable to our Navy and our Army.

I would like to add, however—and in this regard one must act in a very responsible way—that when we take stock of all our national priorities in connection with the spending of funds, we must ask whether the Defence Force can receive more money than it does at present. It is quite true that this is a complex problem.

As we have come to expect of the hon. member for Durban Point, he again made an exceptional contribution to this debate. His speeches always contribute to the high, non-political level of the discussion of this Vote. As regards his allegations about possible poor communication in the middle echelons, and the unnecessary training exercises, I wish to assure him that the Defence Force will give attention to these matters if they could be given further particulars concerning them.

†The hon. member again produced his file containing correspondence on pay problems, although I believe the volume of that correspondence is diminishing. I am not quite sure either whether it is still the same file. [Interjections.]

It has been updated.

The Chief of the Defence Force has been giving his personal attention to this matter, and an independent team of private consultants also confirmed that the Defence Force was taking the correct remedial action but that errors of less than 1% would almost be impossible to achieve in any large organization of this nature. One must bear in mind that the S.A. Defence Force is paying 100 000 members every month and that the total pay cheque exceeds R50 million every month. I am therefore pleased to state here today that a significant decrease in pay queries—from more than 4% to less than 1%—has already been achieved. Pay problems of national servicemen have in fact been reduced to 0,25%. New problems in respect of the Permanent Force did, however, arise in April this year, when very involved specialized pay rates were introduced at short notice following the Civil Service pay increases. Nevertheless, the Defence Force managed to pay out these considerable amounts during April, thus solving the associated problems.

*I do not wish to comment at this stage on his remarks on the attending of camps and the alleviation of the burden this entails. It forms part of the investigation into the national service system in its entirety, a matter which has not yet been finalized.

Allow me, Sir, to make a few observations in connection with this investigation. I am making a few general observations because quite a number of hon. members referred to this investigation. I want to ask hon. members please to exercise a little patience until early next year, because we are dealing with a problem here which involves particularly complex facets. In this regard I wish to repeat what I said yesterday, viz. that we must carefully weigh up the greater pressure on our manpower resources—as a result of the escalation in the threat, on which all hon. members are agreed and as became very clear during the discussion of this Vote—against the economic needs of the country, the social disadvantages and many other factors. This calls for a balanced and responsible approach, which takes a great deal of time. However, I hope to be able to inform hon. members about this in detail during the next session of Parliament.

The hon. member also referred to concessions and longer weekends. I shall return to this point later and deal with it in detail. As regards the request he made during the discussion of the Posts and Telecommunications Vote concerning telephones at camps, I instructed the Defence Force to investigate this matter to see where there are shortages and to make the necessary applications for telephones.

†An inquiry is being held in so far as violence and the accident rate in the S.A. Defence Force are concerned and as soon as I receive a report I shall discuss the matter further with the hon. member.

*As far as journeys by train are concerned, the hon. member argued that members of the Defence Force should rather travel by plane instead of wasting their time travelling by train. This is a difficult situation. One cannot do the one thing only and not the other. For this reason the policy is that depending on the rank of the individual and the question of whether his time is precious to the Defence Force, it is decided whether someone should travel by plane. If his rank is of such a nature, he will travel by plane. I think this should serve as a special incentive to our Citizen Force and commando members to qualify for higher ranks.

†I shall discuss the aspect concerning funeral allowances further with the department and come back to the hon. member on that.

*In connection with the aspect where the hon. member referred to the Citizen Force in respect of recreational facilities, I shall instruct the S.A. Defence Force to issue an administrative order in this connection so that the various Citizen Force and commando units on operational duty will know what the procedure is which they will have to follow to obtain these facilities.

I come now to the hon. member for Pretoria West. He has always shown understanding in his constructive contributions, and I wish to thank him for this. As a former officer of the Citizen Force he has a thorough knowledge of the Defence Force and it is always a pleasure to listen to him. I agree wholeheartedly with his sentiments that we must intensify our counter-strategy by building up our levels of strength because, as he quite rightly pointed out, the time in which to do this is extremely limited. A reply to his proposals in regard to national service cannot be given until the committee has reported and we have considered the proposals.

The hon. member for Pietersburg paid tribute to the important contributions of our men and women of the Medical Services. I should like to associate myself with this, especially since good medical care, whether on the battlefield or at home, is certainly one of the most effective ways of building morale. He also asked us to consider extending the voluntary service scheme for women or introducing compulsory military service for women in the Medical Services. This will be done.

The hon. member for Randfontein mentioned the high standard of the officers corps of the S.A. Defence Force. This is a statement which was also made by other members and with which I associate myself wholeheartedly. His reference to the good work being done by the chaplains corps is also appreciated. The chaplains corps is doing fantastic work in the S.A. Defence Force and it is a pity that they do not receive the support, and do not have the image or the reputation one would like them to have. That is why I am glad that the hon. member made a contribution in this connection. There are still people in South Africa today who are still not aware that the S.A. Defence Force, as far as is feasible and possible, accommodates all religions in the Defence Force.

I also wish to thank the hon. member for his reference to the distribution of Bibles in Angola. As he rightly pointed out, the chaplains corps is not only interested in the ministering to the spiritual needs of members of the S.A. Defence Force. They are also active far beyond the borders of our country.

The hon. member for Standerton made a particularly fruitful contribution, one which testified to his patriotism and his earnest approach to this subject. To tell the truth, I thought he was engaged in his own Operation Protea here in this House. His plea for extensions to the facilities at George, for another training college for women and the extension of the national service system to women are matters to which the investigation into national service is already giving attention. I agree with him that we have in our young women a valuable source of manpower which is not yet being utilized to anywhere near its full potential. In saying this I do not wish to raise any expectations in the short term as a great deal of research must still be done before we can consider introducing a full-fledged national service system for women on the same level as the one we already have for our young men. Time will have to tell whether this is necessary.

†The hon. member for Wynberg made a very valid point when he said that we are not dealing only with a small band of terrorists in South West Africa. We are indeed fighting a terrorist force of considerable strength and, as was proved during Operation Protea, they have the backing of the USSR and Cuba in regard to equipment, training, planning and, I think, even in overall command. The hon. member’s proposals to alleviate the military burden of our young men will also be referred to the committee investigating the national service scheme. In regard to his request for guidelines for deferment of national service, this is, of course, a matter for the Manpower Board. I shall ask the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force to convey the hon. member’s request to that body.

*As regards his plea in connection with concessions, this is a matter concerning which there has been a great deal of correspondence with the Minister of Transport Affairs. The Defence Force endorses the pleas which were also made in this connection by the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. In this connection it is the Defence Force’s policy to locate national servicemen as close as geographically possible to their homes. However, hon. members will realize that this is not always possible, since 60% of the national servicemen come from the PWV complex and units are scattered throughout the country. However, I shall ask the department to go into this aspect again. As regards concessions and weekends, matters raised by the hon. member for Durban Point in particular, I shall ask the department to re-examine the position to see whether the training cannot be arranged in such a way that there will consistently be longer weekends. National servicemen will then be able to travel longer distances.

The hon. member referred to administrative problems. By means of the computerization of our staff system we are hoping to eliminate many of the administrative problems in connection with the records of the Citizen Force and the commandos. The hon. member pointed out that members are sometimes not sure whether their period of service has been completed and when they make inquiries they get all kinds of conflicting replies. We believe that computerization will facilitate the matter and that fewer mistakes will occur.

The contributions of the hon. members for Roodeplaat and Roodepoort dealt with the high degree of professionalism in Armscor. The contribution of South African industrialists to our arms industry after the institution of the arms embargo can never be accorded sufficient praise. Without Armscor’s contribution defencewise we would never have made the grade. I also welcome the reference to the scientific and technological stimulous given by Armscor to the private sector. This contributes to the advancement of the country as a whole. Both these hon. members rightly pointed out the high quality of Armscor’s products.

The hon. member for Greytown apologized for not being able to be here today. He wanted to know how active the Orientation Services Division is. There are 221 local assimilation committees. Of these 73 are under the guidance of either the mayor or the town clerk of the specific town. An evaluation of this scheme has already been made. It appears that where there is a need the committees function adequately. Where returning members have adjustment problems which call for professional assistance, the Defence Force’s welfare organization, in co-operation with the civilian bodies, is geared to rendering such assistance.

The hon. member should rather clear up the question of the wearing of camouflage uniforms at certain times by members of the South African Police with the hon. the Minister of Police.

The hon. member for Sasolburg again referred to another specific source of manpower. Although I cannot reply to him at this stage, owing to the uncompleted investigation, I should like to associate myself with his sentiments in respect of the volunteers. It is true that in spite of the seriousness of the situation people do not want to become involved and that our civil defence organizations are suffering serious consequences because of that approach. Our people will have to realize once and for all how necessary each and every one of them is and that they will all have to make a more tangible contribution in some or other way.

As always the hon. member for Benoni again made a contribution of outstanding quality to the debate today and I want to thank him for this. With his thorough knowledge of the strategy of the Soviet Union he was able to demonstrate to us, on the basis of examples, the cunning way in which the Russians set about implementing their strategy. There is definitely a lesson for us in this and we dare not ignore it. I share his concern at the conventional arms build-up on our country’s borders.

†I also wish to thank the hon. member for Umhlanga for his positive and well-prepared contribution. I think I speak on behalf of the whole House if I say that we are in full agreement with his views on the pollution of the thoughts of our young men.

*The hon. member for Waterkloof referred to Gen. Sir Walter Walker’s speech in Taiwan in which he referred to the South African soldiers. The general has also been the guest of the South African Defence Force. He is a strategist of international renown. I consider his objective grasp of the military situation in South Africa and South West Africa to be extremely realistic.

The hon. member’s reference to the good physical and mental care taken of our Defence Force members was greatly appreciated. I also endorse the hon. member’s praise for the home front organizations that do their best to ensure the welfare of our troops.

The hon. member for Brentwood’s contribution also deserves special mention, because the tremendous contribution which the Defence Force is making to the training of our young people, men, women and Blacks for the open labour market, is not always realized and fully appreciated. I wish to thank him for the competent way in which he illustrated this.

†The hon. member for Simonstown, as usual, contributed positively to this debate. He called the immediate history the decade of détente or the decade of shame. I can only associate myself with his plea to Western countries to wake up to the threat of the Soviet Union. We in South Africa can only hope that the Western world will display the same understanding as the hon. member.

I have noted the hon. member’s remarks on our naval vessels and harbour protection. As regards the frigates, they are not being summarily scratched and some will be kept in service as long as they are cost-effective. Plans for harbour protection are implemented in conjunction with the South African Railways and Harbours Police. All national keypoint harbours have a marine element available, including harbour transport of local manufacture.

*In his speech the hon. member for Kroonstad demonstrated that he was thoroughly conversant with the commandos and their problems. I wish to assure him that the manpower problem of the rural commando is also being considered in the investigation into national service. However, recent investigations into one border district showed that only 15% of the farmers are members of the local commando. After a year-long recruitment campaign by the Permanent Force officer there was only a 7% improvement. We will never be able to defend the rural areas at this rate.

Steps have already been taken to bring the regulation concerning the political rights of Defence Force members to the attention of members of the South African Defence Force. The commandos are also included in this. This is also one of the reasons why I spent a great deal of time on this aspect yesterday.

I wish to associate myself with the praise meted out by the hon. member for Ladybrand for our sports administrators and sportsmen for their wonderful achievements, especially during the present year. The Defence Force is rapidly taking the lead in almost every type of sport, thanks to the high priority accorded to sport in the S.A. Defence Force’s training programme and the dedication and enthusiasm with which our sports administrators undertake their task. The hon. member’s thorough preparation for the discussion of this subject meets with general appreciation.

†The hon. member for Bezuidenhout displayed a remarkable knowledge of, and pride in, our Citizen Force units. He has come up with the interesting proposal of establishing a veterans’ volunteer reserve. This certainly deserves looking into, and I shall ask the Chief of the Defence Force to conduct a feasibility study on the basis of his proposals. Positive suggestions like this are always welcome, especially when they come from ex-Defence Force officers of the calibre of the hon. member.

*The hon. member for Middelburg also spoke for the most part about the underlying reasons for the opposition to military service which is building up among Citizen Force and commando members. We are aware of this and I wish to assure the hon. member that we are looking into it. I shall refer at a later stage in greater detail to his remark on the confinement of the activities of commandos to their regions.

I am pleased to be able to reply to the hon. member for Jeppe’s question on the rumours in connection with the extension of the initial period of service of national servicemen by saying that there is no truth in the rumour that this period is going to be extended to three years. It remains two years. I shall ask the Chief of the Defence Force to consider the feasibility of implementing the proposal that MPs be informed of military funerals in their constituencies. I have no objections to this in principle, but there may perhaps be practical problems in this connection. I also share his appreciation for the good work being done by the Loss Control Unit. Without this unit’s contribution the Defence Force would undoubtedly be poorer by far.

†The hon. member for Berea asked for the greater involvement of the S.A. Defence Force in socio-economic development projects. I agree with him that the S.A. Defence Force should, within the limits of our financial and manpower resources, contribute towards civic action programmes. It must, however, be borne in mind that the S.A. Defence Force’s primary task is the defence of the country, in accordance with the policies set out in my speech yesterday. In connection with his remark about criticism, I just want to reiterate what I said before: Constructive criticism is always welcome.

*I also thank the hon. member for Johannesburg West for his suggestions on the importance of sound financial administration. I can assure him that the Chief of Staff (Finance) and listened to him attentively. This is an aspect to which the S.A. Defence Force gives a great deal of attention, because the Defence Force undertakes the spending of funds voted by Parliament with a sense of responsibility and with care. I wish to compliment him on broaching the subject and illustrating it in such a very competent manner.

The hon. member for Witbank also made a contribution in connection with the Exemption Board. I wish to refer him to what I said in reply to the hon. member for Wynberg. According to the present system we have to accept that where an employer is able to negotiate exemption for a national serviceman, the specific Exemption Board will always consider the merits of the case.

His remarks on our welfare services and their importance to the S.A. Defence Force did not pass unnoticed. This remains a matter of high priority for the department. The need for welfare staff is such that it has been found that it is not cost effective to continue with the scheme under which we previously trained our own welfare officers. We are now recruiting experienced welfare officers in the open labour market.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg emphasized in an excellent way the importance of discipline in the military set-up. I am pleased that he touched on the matter, because this is a matter which is causing the Command Board a measure of concern. We dare not allow erosion to take place in this field. As the hon. member rightly pointed out, strict discipline is just as important today as it was in the armies of the past. Today, however, there has been a shift in emphasis in the application of discipline in comparison with former times.

†The kind and true words the hon. member for King William’s Town spoke about the officers and men of the S.A. Defence Force are much appreciated. Recognition for their sacrifices is not always given. I do not think we always realize the value of combat experience gained by our men in South West Africa while defending the country. The hon. member could unfortunately not complete his speech. It would appear that he still has certain suggestions to make on the S.A. Defence Force and the commando organization, and I invite him to submit his ideas in writing for consideration.

*The hon. member for Umfolozi paid tribute to the good work being done by the women who organize the “Ballerina” (belen-ry-na) scheme and the motorists who have supported the “Ride Safe” scheme. He also made an appeal to newspapers to render a service by publicizing the “Ride Safe” scheme. I wish to give this appeal of his my whole-hearted support. A campaign in this connection was recently launched on television.

The hon. member for North Rand offered his assistance in making points of communication available so that the defence message could be transmitted to the general public. I think that the education of the public is a very important prerequisite in this climate or phase shift we are experiencing or going through. The Defence Force is only too willing to help if there is any guidance, communication or other aspects by means of which the message can be put across. He also referred to military high schools. I shall refer this matter to my colleague, the hon. the Minister of National Education.

In conclusion I should also like to take this opportunity to thank the South African media and more specifically the military correspondents we have today for their contribution towards cultivating a better understanding between the S.A. Defence Force and the public. The Defence Force is a national defence force and communication between the nation and the Defence Force is therefore of the utmost importance for good understanding and the maintenance of a high degree of preparedness and a strong morale.

Finally I should like to make a few announcements. During the past year the commando policy has been revised and it was decided to amend its application to a certain extent. When the new directives come into force members of the commandos will be utilized within their own field of responsibility to carry out specific security tasks. To be able to do this properly it is essential that the present voluntary element be expanded considerably. I trust that the hon. members will realize the seriousness of this and will support the Defence Force by using their influence in this connection. What this basically amounts to is that the activities of commandos must now be confined to certain areas. Various hon. members raised this matter here, among others the hon. members for Pretoria West, Wynberg, Sasolburg, Kroonstad, Middelburg and King William’s Town and the hon. member Mr. Theunissen.

The South African Navy’s unit of company strength which took part in operations against terrorists alongside the Army, the Air Force and the Medical Services in the operational area during the past year, was very successful. This operational service will continue, and should serve to sharpen the military capability of the Navy. The hon. member for Simonstown will probably be particularly interested in this, in view of his plea for harbour protection.

In conclusion it is a pleasure for me to announce that the hon. the Prime Minister has agreed to the training area of the Army’s combat school at Lohatlha being named after him. Consequently it will henceforth be known as the P. W. Botha Training Area. The South African Army spontaneously addressed this request through my office to the hon. the Prime Minister. This Army Combat School which was initiated by my predecessor, was established in 1977 for the exclusive purpose of training conventional forces in practical conventional warfare. This institution has thus far succeeded very well indeed in its aim, as was recently proved by Operation Protea against Swapo. At this combat school the very latest combat techniques are tested and applied with modern weapons developed, manufactured and supplied by our own arms industry. Owing to the far-sightedness of my predecessor it was an honour and a privilege for me to transmit and support the Army’s request to him. I am certain hon. members share my feelings and those of the S.A. Defence Force in this connection.

In conclusion, and to emphasize the seriousness of the situation as it was emphasized very clearly during this debate by all hon. members, I wish to repeat what Sir Winston Churchill said under similar circumstances in the British Parliament in 1940—

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 24.—“Improvements of conditions of service”, agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the hon. nominated member Dr. Marais pointed out to the Opposition very successfully the financial and business benefits this legislation involves for South Africa. It was also very clear during the discussion that the official Opposition simply did not want to listen to reason and would not accept any explanation. That is why they continue to quibble about petty matters to which the hon. the Minister and hon. members on this side of the House have already furnished adequate replies. They were not open to conviction. I am amazed that towards the end of the debate we still had to listen to arguments such as those advanced by the hon. members for Bryanston and Port Elizabeth Central. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said the following—and I quote from his Hansard—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to know a lot about windmills, and it seems to me as if that is as far as his financial knowledge goes. When we investigate the matter with a view to ascertaining how this matter affects South Africa, we find that it is not the taxpayer that is paying for this. We have already spelled that out to the hon. member. If he would only take the trouble to read the annual report of the Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation of Africa Limited he would ascertain how many premiums have been paid into this fund and how many claims have been paid from it. If, after that, he still wants to come and tell South Africa that it is the taxpayer that has to pay for this then he must accept that the subsequent untruths he is now going to utter will be on his own head.

May I ask a question?

Certainly.

I should like to ask the hon. member this question. In the event of the amount of funds in that reinsurance fund not being sufficient to cover the amount of claims made upon it, who pays?

That matter was settled 25 years ago. At that time we did not receive premiums and we found ourselves in that position. The Government then said that in the event of such a situation occurring, it would stand guarantor, and this entire House agreed to that. Even at that stage Mr. Jan Haak assured this House that he did not foresee anything of the kind happening, and after 25 years it has not yet happened. The hon. member need not be concerned that it will happen. The committee appointed to consider the credit risks run by companies in the various countries where they invest, attends to that. That committee consists of officials of the Department, people from the Reserve Bank and others who have to serve on that committee. They convene several times each year to decide on credit risks in various countries. I have also said to the hon. member that South Africa is a member of the Berne Union, and association of countries that have trade links with one another in this way, and that analyse the credit risks of various countries and keep one another constantly informed in regard to the risks that arise in various countries where investments may be made. Therefore we can inform our people far in advance as to the credit risks in various countries.

I am not going to deal further with the Opposition. I just want to come back to a remark made by the hon. member for Berea which appeared in the Press. It appeared in The Citizen of Friday 18 September. According to this report, the hon. member encouraged us and requested us to get together with our neighbouring States in order to expand trade links. On an occasion such as this, when we try to strengthen those trade links, when we try to establish instruments and machinery to strengthen those links, all we get from them is opposition. According to this report, the hon. member had this to say, among other things—

That is, South Africa and Zimbabwe—

We have been doing our very best to achieve that “progress and stability” but all we have encountered from that side of the House has been opposition. I said that I should leave them at that. We on this side of the House are grateful that we have reached the final stage of this legislation.

I am still amazed—I referred to this at the beginning of the debate, and I hoped that the media would furnish the public with more information as to just what this legislation would achieve—that the newsmedia have given the matter so little attention. I point this out because one sometimes becomes despondent when one sees that large companies allow their export departments to lapse in a period when South Africa is in a state of economic revival. It is a pity that they permit that, because by keeping up the export facet of one’s company, one ensures that when there is a downward trend in South Africa’s economic situation, one can keep that company operating at a very satisfactory level.

The effect of this legislation is going to be widely felt throughout our country by many South Africans. It will have a profound effect on South Africans working in exporting companies because, as I have already indicated, this will insure their jobs. They will be geared to supplying not only the South African market, but also the export market, and to planning and investing on an increasing scale.

The investor who will make use of this legislation will be able to enlarge his production turnover, and therefore his costs of production can be reduced. He will also have a bigger turnover in capital investment. I believe—and this has been proved—that this may improve South Africa’s trade balance with our trading partners. It is going to create more employment opportunities in South Africa and result in greater stability in that employment.

I see this legislation as supporting the economic foundation of the constellation of States. To prove this I wish to refer to reports which appeared in our newspapers at the time of the discussion of this legislation. I am now specifically going to the constituencies of the official Opposition because I want the industrialists in those regions to take note. I refer to Die Transvaler of Tuesday, 25 August in which the following is reported under the heading “Goedkoop wonings in Durban gebou—Suid-Afrika gaan huise na Argentinië uitvoer”—

I have said that South Africans will benefit by this legislation. Is it now clear on what a wide front South Africans will benefit by this type of export?

We have no objection to export. We are worried about the other things.

That industrialist now has to invest in Argentinia because he cannot simply export such houses, he must ensure that the houses can be erected in that country. It may be necessary to go from local authority to local authority to make them aware of the erection of such houses and to find out whether they are interested. He therefore has to go and invest in that country in order to market his product further. By marketing the houses, he also markets the various items of which mention is made in the newspaper report, and he will provide many South Africans with employment opportunities. He will also provide a great deal of work for South Africa.

I am now going to refer to another such report, one which appeared in the Sake-Rapport of Sunday, 16 August 1981. The title reads as follows: “Buffcor belê groot oorsee”. I quote from the report—

Mention is also made in the report of the fact that Buffcor is engaged in a constant search for a new product. This is another proof of progress. This company is now going to use steel instead of aluminium. Therefore our steel turnover will increase. We are going to export a machine, which will result in a higher rate of turnover in the manufacture of that machine. Surely that is proof that this company is making progress.

I also wish to quote from another newspaper report in this connection. In the Wednesday, 16 September 1981 edition of “Sakenuus”, a column in Die Transvaler, a report appears entitled “Buffcor skitter”. The report is on the progress made by the company. If one reads the annual report of the Export Credit Corporation, almost every page attests to the benefit of our neighbouring countries and our companies in South Africa derive from it. For example, in the same annual report we read about a hydroelectric scheme being built in the Umtata River in Transkei. I see that there is also an excellent photo in the annual report of a tool-case intended to contain the full set of tools used by a motor mechanic. This tool-case is also manufactured domestically, but it is now to be exported as well. It is even going to be marketed in Europe. This means that even the screwdrivers, shifting spanners, pliers, etc.—all the usual tools of a motor mechanic’s trade—are now also to be manufactured in South Africa. Moreover we are also exporting these pieces of equipment to other countries as well. The fact that this equipment is to be exported means that new investments will necessarily have to be made. Overseas distribution points will have to be established for the external marketing of this equipment. This entails a larger distribution network, which in turn can result in greater production and turnover for us.

Then, too, the annual report makes mention of a joint undertaking comprising LTA Limited and Power Lines Beperk that were responsible for the successful clinching of a contract for the design, provision and construction of a powerline 370 km long for the National Electricity Corporation of Chile. These are all matters involving additional possibilities for South Africa that are insured by this company. The total turn-over of this corporation for the past ten years amounts to R12 530 million. This gives us some indication of what that turnover has meant financially for workers in South Africa, of the employment opportunities created thereby for South Africans, achievements which we can continue to build on in the future.

I referred during the Second Reading debate to the plant to be built in Malawi. Therefore, in the fight of that I want to assure the hon. the Minister that as far as this legislation is concerned he can count on the support of hon. members on this side of the House. We are sure that this legislation has been created in the hands of the hon. the Minister and his hon. Deputy with a view to the benefits it could involve for South Africa’s industrialists and the people of South Africa in general. We therefore support this Third Reading of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the hon. member for Boksburg that with regard to his views on exports in general we on this side of the House agree fully with what he has said. I have had quite a lot of experience with regard to exports and have been dealing with the export credit reinsurance company for many years, but what the hon. member and other hon. members on that side of the House do not quite understand, is that the principle of the Bill now before the House is a completely new one, namely the question of investment. We say that the definition that has been given to investments is not clear enough. We say that the definition should refer to investments for exports only, because by using this particular method in the Bill it is open to abuse and there can be circumventions in respect of this. We on this side of the House are afraid that it is open to abuse, and that is our problem. We have no objections to exporting. For the most part we are in that type of business ourselves and we encourage it to the best of our ability.

The other point, a point that is most important, is whether this fund has had or has not had to pay out everything that it possesses over the last 25 years. This is not the point at stake. What is at stake is that the State, i.e. the Government of South Africa, is the insurer of last resort. If it should happen that there is a loss on an investment in a country and the fund has insufficient funds to pay, the State has to pay. The State is the guarantor of the insurance, and therefore it behoves this House to be very, very careful what is done when the State acts as guarantor.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he can give in one example, in the 25 years this fund has been in operation, where the State has had to pay?

That is not the point at stake. I admit that to date the fund has been well run, but under the proposed conditions that only apply …

Answer the question.

I am answering the question. The situation is that the fund has been well run in respect of exports to date, but we now have a new set of circumstances where we are going to insure investments. Once one has to insure investments it is possible that a large amount of money can be lost for political reasons, in a revolution or something that might take place. It might be possible that the fund has insufficient money to pay that person or company. The insurer of last resort in this instance is the State. Therefore we as legislators have to ensure that we do not put the State in a position where it might suffer great losses. That is the only aspect with regard to the principle that this side of the House is not happy with and therefore we do not support the Bill. We must make absolutely certain that the State as guarantor does not suffer.

Mr. Speaker, I am completely at a loss to understand the approach of especially the hon. member for Bryanston, and it is a pity that he is not here this afternoon. The hon. member started his speech by saying that he spoke very nicely to me, in the hope that I would move an amendment that would make the Bill acceptable to him and to the Opposition. However, at the same time he suggested that if the investments were only meant for the national States in South Africa, they would have supported the Bill. This attitude was also very loudly supported by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. This hon. member said that nowhere in the Bill is there any indication that the investments will be made only in the national States. In other words, he supported the approach of the hon. member for Bryanston. However, the question I should like to pose to these hon. gentlemen is: Why did they not move an amendment? I should like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central to tell me why, if they would have supported the investment principle in this Bill if it was applicable only to the national States, did they not move an amendment?

*Sir, I shall tell you why they did not move an amendment. They failed to move it for one reason only, i.e. because they did not want investments by the private sector in the national States in South Africa.

The S.A. Development Trust already covers it.

If the hon. members are in favour of the private sector investing in the national States, why did they not move the amendment to which the hon. member for Bryanston referred?

The S.A. Development Trust already covers it.

It does not cover it, and if the hon. member reads the principal Act he will see that that is so.

*However, there is yet another reason why they did not move that amendment. They are now coming forward with sly stories. The hon. member for Bryanston implied that if that amendment were to be proposed, they would support the legislation. However, they do not want economic development in the homelands and I accuse them of making use of this legislation to check the economic development of the homelands because we said that the principal aim of this legislation was primarily to make investments of the private sector in the homelands possible. We stated this specifically and hon. members opposite said that if they had the assurance that this was the aim, they would support the legislation. I say that they do not wish to support the legislation because they want to make use of it for the purposes of extra-parliamentary action which, as far as the development is concerned …

That is totally and deliberately untrue.

That is an interesting remark, Sir.

Order! The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Hon. members opposite do not wish to support the legislation because they want to make use of it to orchestrate extra-parliamentary action against the development of the homelands.

That is a very interesting remark which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central made, in that a few days ago we conducted a debate in this House on extra-parliamentary action, and on that occasion hon. members opposite said that there was nothing wrong with it. Now the hon. member says it is untrue. [Interjections.]

Let us take a careful look at this legislation before us at present. One question on which I am not entirely clear is the attitude of the Opposition towards the private sector. They asked two questions which, in my opinion, cast a reflection on the ability of the private sector to evaluate their own economic investments, wherever they are made. They want to know what projects are being invested in there and they expressed reservations as to the type of product. Secondly, they asked in which countries investments would be made.

Paraguay or Uruguay?

They therefore expressed reservations as to the ability of the private sector to determine for themselves the risk involved in their investments in various countries. I wish to state clearly that their entire attitude in regard to this legislation casts a reflection on the ability of the private sector to evaluate on an economic basis the projects they undertake in other countries. We must consider what we have here. The South African government is making no investment abroad in this regard. Hon. members know that. They will have to concede that, since the investment is being made by the private sector. The private sector carries out the necessary economic evaluation of the investment in whatever country it may be. The private sector evaluates the economic risk they have to accept. This legislation does not relate to economic risk, but other risks. I do not wish to quote this since it is very clearly stated in the Bill.

Political risks.

It deals with other risks which are reinsured in respect of investments.

By the State.

Yes, by the State. The risk determines the size of the premium. The premium is therefore determined by the risk and by nothing else.

Why does the State have to reinsure it?

If there were no risks in the world, why would we have insurance? Insurance is the largest single financial industry in the entire world. The reason for this is that there are risks, and people have to be insured against these risks.

Only in certain cases.

Let us take a practical look at this aspect. Any investment abroad, in a foreign country, contemplated by the private sector is evaluated by them on an economic basis, and the total and also the political risks are evaluated. The premiums for reinsurance are determined by the extent of the risk. If the risk is unacceptably great—the hon. member Dr. Marais referred to this and even quoted examples—then cover is not provided. Surely that goes without saying. Those premiums are then deposited in the fund. The hon. member states that we are now faced with a new risk. Surely that is untrue; it is totally untrue. Whether it be a credit re-insurance or an investment re-insurance, the insurance is still in respect of precisely the same risk. There is no difference whatsoever in the risk taken and insured for. This is therefore no new dispensation with regard to the risk we take. There is no change with regard to the risk; it remains precisely the same, whether it be an investment or a credit risk. It remains exactly the same and in the final instance the Government is still the ultimate guarantor of payment if there should be claims. Over the past 25 years there has not been a single instance of the State having to foot the bill for claims.

Are you saying, therefore, that it is not necessary for the State to re-insure at all?

In respect of what country was the biggest risk claim submitted during 1981? The answer is the USA. The biggest risk claim came from the USA. I think the hon. members of the Opposition have shown very clearly where they stand by virtue of their attitude towards this legislation. It has given us a very clear idea of their whole approach to investment in other states. In spite of our explanation that the primary objective of this legislation is to enable the private sector to invest in our national States, the hon. Opposition has undoubtedly let the cat out of the bag. They have shown that they do not wish to promote any investments by the private sector in the national States. [Interjections.] They do not want to see economic development in the national States. [Interjections.] They do not want to see employment opportunities in the national States. [Interjections.]

You should be ashamed of yourself.

That hon. member should just listen. If it had been their aim to permit that, why, then, did they not move the amendment which would have made it possible? They did not move such an amendment, nor did they want to move it.

I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti for his support. It is very clear that he fully understands the objectives of this legislation. It is also very clear that he realizes that the risks have not changed in any way. Whether it be a credit risk or an investment risk, the risk itself does not change at all. The cover remains the same and the premium is determined by the extent of the risk.

I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member Dr. Marais for a very clear exposition of the overall economic evaluation of the set-up. I also want to thank the hon. member for Boksburg for the fact that he repeatedly pointed out to hon. members that the taxpayer’s money is not involved here. The hon. Opposition is merely dragging in the taxpayer to create a political climate opposed to development in the homelands. That is the only reason they dragged that in.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the first two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 2, in line 23, to omit “discontinued, reduced or”;
2. (2) on page 2, in line 27, to omit “discontinue, reduce or”;

Read together, those two amendments will have the effect that the power to discontinue or reduce the payment of an allowance will be denied the hon. the Minister; in other words, he will only have the power to pay or increase an allowance, as the case may be. In the Second Reading we asked the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us an indication of the circumstances in which it would be necessary to discontinue the payment of such an allowance or reduce the amount thereof, and the hon. the Minister was unfortunately unable to give us a satisfactory answer in this connection. Once again I want to say that I do not take it amiss of the hon. the Minister, because this is a measure which appears in a similar form in the General Pensions Act of 1979, which is a consolidation Act. Therefore this provision has already existed in this form for a number of years.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has also indicated that to the best of his knowledge that power had never really been used. That is a very important concession and statement on the part of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I think that for the purposes of the discussion of this clause we must take cognizance of that. If, therefore, it has not been used, I really do not see the need for that power to exist. In my opinion, the payment of this form of allowance, to the extent that it has been done in the past, is, in point of fact, regarded as part of the pension. From the point of view of the Government and the law, a distinction may be drawn between the increase of a pension and the payment of an allowance to supplement the pension. There may be reasons for this and this is something one understands and accepts. However, as regards the person who receives the income, I believe that whatever one calls it, it is in fact simply regarded as his pension. Therefore I think that as far as possible one should respect it to the same degree as one respects a pension right. Therefore, if a person is entitled to it and he is granted an increase, whether by way of an increase of his pension per se or by way of the payment of an allowance, one has to respect that increase as well, and not tamper with it lightly.

I have really tried hard to think of circumstances which could justify the reduction or discontinuance of an allowance awarded to a person in terms of the provision in question, but I honestly cannot think of circumstances which justify it, unless it is something extremely important or involving the gravest circumstances, for example, if the Government found that it was virtually insolvent. However, that is practically unthinkable. I therefore want to say to the hon. the Minister that if such a measure is necessary, it will be sufficient if we create the situation in which the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister will be obliged to come back to this House to move amending legislation to make this possible. I want to recommend in the strongest possible terms that he accept my two amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity to give careful attention to the amendments of the hon. member for Green Point. I replied during the Second Reading to the arguments advanced, and the hon. member has again indicated that the provisions in this clause correspond with section 8 of the General Pensions Act, Act No. 29 of 1979. As I indicated in the Second Reading, these apply to former members of this House and to former members of the provincial councils and former Administrations. I also argued in the Second Reading that it should be stressed that the circumstances of the people in question must be taken into account. The Minister will not, therefore, summarily reduce or discontinue an allowance if the circumstances of the person in question have not even been taken into account. I think that what we have here is built-in protection for each member of such a pension scheme. The third argument I advanced, which I wish to repeat, is that if the Minister were to take such a decision and the allowance were to be reduced or discontinued, if the person in question felt that he had been unjustly treated, he would still have the full right of recourse to the courts. However, I wish to put forward another argument, viz. that we must bear in mind that the allowance is granted on the basis of the exercise of a discretionary power. If the allowance were to be incorrectly calculated due to an administrative or accounting error, it could not be argued at a later stage that a mistake had been made, because the allowance is, after all, paid in terms of the exercise of a discretionary power. In the light of the fact that we are concerned here with a discretion, as I see it it is implicit that the Minister who exercises this discretion must also have the necessary power to increase, reduce or discontinue the allowance with retrospective effect. It is not simply a question of the reduction or discontinuance of an allowance, but also the increase thereof. The Minister would then take the circumstances of the beneficiary into account to ensure that such a person would receive no more nor less than was initially awarded to him. Therefore the power being granted here is a purely discretionary one, and where mistakes occur and people are overpaid, it cannot simply be rectified administratively or by accounting adjustments. Therefore the Minister must have this power as well. With reference to the arguments I have just advanced, particularly the last one—which the hon. member, as a lawyer, will concede is a very important one—I am very sorry but I cannot accept his amendments.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that my amendments are not acceptable to him. I want to address him once again in respect of one or two aspects relating to them.

The hon. the Deputy Minister argued that the circumstances—and this has been incorporated in the Bill—of the person in question must be taken into account when a decision is made as to whether his allowance is increased, reduced or discontinued. Although we do of course accept this and we also accept that under those circumstances such a person may in fact apply to the courts for assistance if incorrect action has been taken, I wish to make the point that due precisely to the fact that discretionary power is granted to the Minister, a court will not be very inclined to interfere. As soon as the Minister can show that he did in fact take the circumstances into account, even though his decision, seen objectively, was not reasonable, it is very doubtful whether in practical circumstances the court would interfere. I also wish to state that the right of recourse to the courts to solve a problem is not really a practical possibility in these circumstances. People who are dependent on a pension are hardly in a position to have recourse to the courts, due to the expense involved. The most important argument advanced by the hon. the Deputy Minister is the issue of circumstances which could arise in which a specific allowance is granted to a person due to an accounting error. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that in those circumstances, due to the fact that this is done on a discretionary basis, the money could not simply be reclaimed.

The hon. the Deputy Minister will recall that I asked him during the Second Reading whether special legislation was necessary for that. At that stage he said that he conceded that special legislation was not necessary. Say for example the hon. the Deputy Minister was wrong, and due to the discretionary nature of the power to increase this pension, the pension could not be recovered because it was not done in accordance with the Act, and because it could not be proved. It would still be possible for the Minister to approach this House with legislation affording him the limited right to recover that overpayment by, for example, reducing the pension for a certain period. However, that would not give him a broad and unlimited power to discontinue or reduce a person’s pension. One is sympathetic with regard to circumstances which could arise due to an accounting error, although one would also express the hope that these errors would not be made regularly. However, if it were to happen then it would be understandable that the overpayment had to be recovered by way of a deduction from the future pension payments to such a pensioner. One can only hope that this will be done carefully and judiciously, because we know that in the case of social pensions, for example, this can create many problems for people. Nevertheless I wish to make the point that if the hon. the Deputy Minister approaches this House and asks for legislation or introduces legislation which would give him the right to reduce the pension in those limited circumstances or to recover a certain amount, we should be prepared to support him. In that instance I should not insist on the acceptance of these amendments of mine. However, I must really say that in spite of the fact that similar legislation is already on the Statute Book, we do not feel content or satisfied about the fact that such a wide discretion is being given to the Minister. Nor, in fact, do we believe that a case has been made for such a discretion being necessary for any circumstances apart from those which the hon. the Deputy Minister has just indicated to us, in other words, where overpayments have been made due to an accounting error. For that specific reason I want to call upon the hon. the Deputy Minister once again to consider these two amendments.

I now move the following further amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to stress this, and give the hon. member and any other hon. members the assurance—because we are all subject to the same legislation—that the circumstances of the person will be taken fully into account. Let us take the example where there has been an overpayment over a period of, say two years, and there has been an overpayment of R3 000 to a certain pensioner. The circumstances of the person in question will be taken into account in such a case. We shall not approach such a person and reclaim the full amount of R3 000 immediately. As the hon. member said, an arrangement would be made in terms of which that amount would be repaid monthly, for example. I have given the matter very careful consideration. The principle we have already accepted here is merely that the pensions of members of the former CRC can also be increased, and that adjustments can be made in this regard from time to time. We are now bringing this completely into line with all the existing councils. No one has been prejudiced by this provision in the past, nor do I believe this will occur in the future. However, I think it is as well that we should have these provisions in the legislation, rather than having to come back to this House every time a mistake is made to pass legislation in that regard.

I therefore wish to conclude by saying that in the circumstances we shall maintain the status quo in accordance with the general pension legislation.

Amendment (1) negatived and amendment (2) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (3) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it was my intention as regards clause 1 of the Members of the Coloured Persons Representative Council Pensions Amendment Bill, the Committee Stage of which has just been disposed of, to move the first two of the three amendments on the Order Paper and then to move the third as an alternative. In this Bill, which is to the same effect, I shall simply move all three of the amendments, and accordingly I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 2, in line 23, to omit “discontinued, reduced or”;
2. (2) on page 2, in line 27, to omit “discontinue, reduce or”;
3. (3) on page 2, in lines 28 and 29, to omit “, which may be a date in the past,”.

Since the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated when we were dealing with the Committee Stage of the previous Bill that he was not prepared to accept the first two amendments, I do not believe it is necessary to dwell on them at length once again. I shall therefore confine myself to indicating to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the same arguments apply and that we stand by them.

As far as the third amendment is concerned I wish to point out that the Minister is being given the power to increase, reduce or discontinue the allowance from a date which may even be in the past. As far as the increase is concerned, this is not an abnormal practice. It is quite acceptable that an increase, the salary, a pension or an allowance may be announced as coming into effect from a date in the past. The power to discontinue or reduce an allowance with retrospective effect is, however, a somewhat more serious matter and I wish to express my opposition to it here and now, because I do not believe that this creates a sound state of affairs. Moreover, this could create problems for the person receiving that pension in that it could come as an unpleasant surprise.

There is just one question I want to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister. At the time of the discussion of the previous Bill, the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated that due to the discretionary nature of the power vested in him to increase, reduce or discontinue a pension, this could cause problems in the recovery of an amount overpaid due to an accounting error. I should like to ask whether, if he were to obtain the power to discontinue or reduce an allowance from a date in the past, he would not encounter difficulties, in the light of the problem to which he referred, in recovering such a pension or overpayment from the receiver. I should like to hear what the hon. the Deputy Minister has to say in this connection.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, the arguments which the hon. member for Green Point advanced with regard to the amendments he proposed are precisely the same as those which applied to the previous Bill. Accordingly, my reply is the same too, except that I want to point out that in the case in question, the hon. member stressed the issue of the date. I want to put it to the hon. member that this was only done in order to introduce the principle of retrospective force here as well. I repeat and confirm once again that this legislation concerns the benefiting of people, people who are at present in an unfavourable position. The aim is to assist them by increasing and improving allowances and pensions payable to them.

After all, this is a principle one encounters everywhere. The principle of retrospective provisions is one that may be encountered everywhere. For the sake of the hon. member I therefore stress once again that the circumstances of the member in question will be taken into account yet again. I do not wish to contend that this will not happen, but it is even possible that in view of the fact that members of the S.A. Indian Council were in an unfavourable position, they may now be placed in a better position, a position which could be retrospective. However, this is not a promise. Nor do I say that this will be the case. However, all that is intended here is that the benefits granted can be made retrospective from a date in the past.

I therefore regret that I cannot accept these amendments either.

Amendment (1) negatived and amendment (2) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (3) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to put it to the hon. Chief Whip of the PFP that if possible I should have liked to have the hon. member for Constantia present in this House.

He is coming.

Is he on his way?

Yes.

He must not come tomorrow, that is all.

In the meantime I shall say a few things about the hon. member for Constantia in his absence. When this Bill was discussed here previously, the hon. member for Constantia said a number of things in connection with this very concise measure which one cannot allow to pass unchallenged. At the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Constantia said: “It is necessary to place a few things on record.”

Then, of course, the hon. member went on to place a number of things on record. I think it is important that we, too, should place a few things on record. In the course of his brief speech the hon. member said certain things about the training centre for Coloured cadets. He said “some very unpleasant things have happened there” and “the institution itself followed a dubious process”. He went on to speak about “so-called training”. He endorsed the accusations that this was “a low-grade prison”. He went on to refer to “detention barracks”; to say “they in fact suffered physical abuse”; and “it was mainly physical drill and lectures on minor things such as hygiene”. He also spoke about “illegal corporal punishment and physical abuse by means of marching drill” and “they were subjected to sadistic instructors on occasion”. He then contrasted this behaviour to the trainees there, “these young, ambitious, law-abiding youths”. He went on to say: “In other words, a good youth with positive social attitudes became a criminal. The committee established by no less than 20% of the intake there were socially deformed elements.” One is sometimes amazed that an hon. member can discuss a Bill using such terminology. One would be amazed if one was not acquainted with the record of the history of the members of the PFP. When the legislation was originally introduced in 1967, the Progressive Party, fortunately, for all the other members of this House, had only one member in this House. The hon. member for Houghton was the only member of the Progressive Party with a seat in this House at the time, and she moved the following amendment to the original Bill—

When the Second Reading of that Bill was discussed, the then Minister of Coloured Affairs justified the existence of this institution in the specific cultural milieu in which the young Coloured men of the time were living. The then official Opposition, the old United Party, supported the Bill. The then Minister did not only depict the true cultural circumstances of some of the young Coloured men, but also quoted Coloured leaders of the time who stated why the Bill was essential. After so many years this institution is now being abolished. I can say to the hon. member for Constantia and to the hon. member for Green Point that I, too, read the report issued by members of the CRC, and I wish to say in all friendliness that as far as I am concerned, this is not an exceptionally scientific report. In my opinion a conclusion was reached in that report which was not based on scientific principles, it did not produce proper evidence and contained many emotional clichés. If the Coloured leaders had really taken note of the positive side of the principles incorporated in this legislation at the time, it would not have been necessary for us to abolish the institution today. However, I wish to state categorically that in general, the hon. member for Houghton and her party adopted a negative and destructive attitude to the establishment of this institution at the time.

Oh no, really!

The hon. member Prof. Olivier may well shake his head. The built-in antipathy on the part of the PFP at the time of the establishment of this institution was such that the extremist Coloured leaders were opposed to it from the outset. [Interjections.] I have no doubt about that, because that is also one of the reasons why the hon. member for Constantia defended himself in such embittered and extremist terms. The snake in the paradise of good race relations in South Africa is, I believe, the White liberals. [Interjections.] These are the people who seek to destroy this type of institution which was established with the best of intentions. If so much violence did in fact take place in this institution, why did the hon. members of the official Opposition not bring matters before the courts? Why did they not show us in that way how the people there were being ill-treated? Then we could have appointed a committee of inquiry to investigate the matter.

In the report of the commission it is pointed out that the social and economic circumstances of the Coloured population have improved to such an extent that this institution is quite probably no longer necessary.

One of the reasons we are now closing this institution, is the fact that there are Whites in South Africa that wish to cast everything done by the NP in a poor light and because there are Brown leaders who lack a broad vision of responsibility and discipline, and who seek to destroy institutions of this nature, riding on the back of and with the evil intentions of the White liberals. [Interjections.]

Just as we established this institution with the best of intentions at the time, we are closing it today in the same spirit. If it is true that there are no longer elements in the Coloured community that have to attend an institution of this kind, we are pleased about that. However, we are also grateful that the NP, with its goodwill, in co-operation with well-meaning Brown people, created an economic and social milieu in which such an institution is no longer necessary. As long as the NP has a responsibility towards the Brown people we shall continue to play our part in line with the principles of our party, with fairness, responsibility and idealism.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will support the Bill. However, arising from what the hon. member for Rissik said, we believe the fault lies both with the Government and the CRC, but we do not believe in raking up the fires of old coals now.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with the Training Centres for Coloured Cadets Repeal Bill. I am grateful for the support accorded this Bill by both Opposition parties. In fact, this training centre has not existed since 1 January 1980, and was closed down on that date. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Constantia deemed it necessary to take this opportunity to bring up a report issued by a commission of the former CRC. I do not take it amiss of the hon. member for not possessing all the information, but he should first perhaps have inquired about the matter. However, this is a place where one learns. I want to say to the hon. member for Constantia that he must not always be so rash. One must be open to learning things too. The department took this opportunity to reply to all these complaints that appear in the report. When one reads these replies one sees that these matters were really not of so serious a nature as he suggested. This centre was not a place of maltreatment. I stated in my Second Reading speech that it was a centre at which work-shy Coloureds between the ages of 18 and 24 years underwent training. It was not a centre for manual training but a centre where these people were taught discipline. They were disciplined so that they could leave there and take their place in society. 38,6% of these people applied there and were registered. What is important, and what we must bear in mind, is that we achieved a 70% success rate with those people. This means that 70% of those cadets were placed in society and are still playing their part. We must bear in mind that those who went there—not all of them—were not little angels. They were difficult people. Very strict discipline had necessarily to be applied. I think that many of those who were in that centre will think back on that centre today with sincere gratitude. That is the first point I want to stress in reply to the question by the hon. member for Constantia. To begin with, it was a place where people had to be disciplined and where they had to be prepared for a life-task. The hon. member advanced complaints about the fact that the buildings of this centre were now being made available to the Defence Force, and I think that he quoted extracts to this effect from the report. If the hon. member knows where this centre is situated he will realize, and must concede, that it fits in very well with the South African Cape Corps. The Defence Force has often asked whether they could not use the buildings in that area. We all have very great appreciation for the major task being performed by the South African Cape Corps. The buildings of the former cadet centre are today serving a very good purpose. Men are being trained and prepared for service on our borders and in the operational area. They are performing a major and very important service for South Africa there. The hon. member also objected because we had not put those grounds and buildings at the disposal of an industrial school. He therefore wanted to know why those buildings had not been converted into an industrial school. We did not simply close that centre and transfer the grounds and buildings to the South African Defence Force. The hon. member objected because I said in the Second Reading that we had saved R270 000 by closing the centre. This does not mean that this is money which we are withholding from the development of the Brown people of South Africa. I want to say to the hon. member that we immediately set to work to establish industrial schools. For example, I can report that an industrial school for 200 boys is to be opened shortly in Atlantis. It will be taken into use in January 1982. An industrial school for 180 boys is being built at Pacaltsdorp near George and will be taken into use during 1983. Then, too, we are considering an industrial school on the Rand. In other words, the work of upliftment of the Brown youth has not come to a standstill. The department is giving constant attention to the matter. Indeed, we have spent a great deal more than the R270 000 we saved by closing the cadet centre. This major and important work is therefore continuing in other schools and other centres, and we are giving constant attention to the matter.

I wish to say to the hon. member for Constantia, with all the responsibility at my command—and I think he will agree with me—that a large portion of the Brown community requires discipline. Brown people themselves say so. On Friday, many Brown people who have worked hard during the week cannot return to their homes in safety because they run the gauntlet of gangs who seek to rob them and steal their hard-earned money from them. I do not think, therefore, that it is right to suggest that through this centre this side of the House sought to maltreat these people. Let us rather look at the work of upliftment being done and the needs of the community, and let us be positive and assist that community.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I just want to react very briefly to what the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Rissik had to say about this Bill. I thank the hon. member for Rissik for advising me that he was going to speak and was going to reply to what I had to say. I am sorry I was not present, however, but I miscalculated the time. I have had the gist of what he said reported to me, however, and I should like to react to that.

I think it is ridiculous to blame the PFP or its supporters in any way whatsoever for the failure of the Faure Cadet Centre. We had nothing whatsoever to do with its running. The administration of this centre was firmly in the hands of the Government, and for a time in the hands of the Coloured Representative Council and the board that controlled that centre. The failings of this centre must be laid at the door of those people who were in charge of the centre. It is ridiculous to blame the PFP. The Theron Commission, which had nothing to do with the PFP, drew attention to the shortcomings at this centre when they reported in 1976, and the subcommittee of the CRC, which went into the matter and produced a critical report, was under the chairmanship of Mr. Lofty Adams, who certainly cannot be counted as a supporter of this party. We therefore do not accept the criticism that has been levelled at us by the hon. member for Rissik at all.

This brings me to what the hon. the Deputy Minister had to say. I think he has conceded that the centre was geared mainly to discipline and not to training, and that was really our main criticism against it. That is what the subcommittee commented on. That is why the centre did not work. It was not fulfilling a training need, but was merely disciplining a large number of youths. I have gone into why it went wrong. I do not want to say more about it at this stage. We are pleased that the centre has been dismantled. It is a sad little chapter in the history of the Administration of Coloured Affairs and we are glad that it is over. We therefore support the Bill. The final aspect of the effects of the Bill—and I must come back to this—is that the request of the CRC that that establishment should be turned into an industrial training school was ignored.

The point is not that the Government is doing something else in this direction. The point is that a subcommittee of the CRC representing the wishes of the Coloured people investigated this matter, which lies within an area of discretion which the Government keeps insisting should be left to the Coloured people, but the Government nevertheless rejected a specific request from the Coloured people arising from that investigation. So it is a case of Government for the Coloureds by the Coloureds being all right as long as it is agreed to by the Government. The point is that the Coloureds requested an industrial school at Faure, that was their decision, but the Government overrode that decision. To that extent the Government has failed to administer properly Coloured affairs in this case.

To the extent to which they are establishing other training schools, we welcome it. It is long overdue and more must be done. We shall support the Government in anything they do in this direction. With those few words we shall support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, today the hon. member for Constantia has expressed himself in more moderate terms than he did last Friday, and in that spirit I briefly wish to advance a few arguments. I made the statement that the PFP, through the hon. member for Houghton, had criticized and disparaged this institution in advance at that time. I just want to quote to the hon. member what the hon. the Minister said at the time about the speech by the hon. member for Houghton (Hansard, 7 March 1967, col. 2557)—

The hon. Minister went on to say that the hon. member for Houghton was not only addressing us here but was also speaking to the people outside.

Now the hon. member states that we do not listen to Coloured leaders and so on. Let me quote what the late Mr. Tom Swartz said at the time. I quote from the report—

This was not regarded as such a sinister institution among a certain portion of the Brown population at the time who took a responsible interest in the new generation, and the good intentions of the NP were not negated. The hon. member for Constantia is a young member, not only in years, but also as a member of this House, and I want to say to him that there is no point in regarding everything the NP does as mala fides. It is also unfair to the Coloured community simply to condone everything within the Coloured community as if there are no faults at that level. After all, we must consider the problems, shortcomings and aspirations of every community realistically and soberly. Often these problems developed in the course of history. I therefore think that the hon. member is being unfair to the NP and also to the Coloured population as such.

Mr. Speaker, before we finally close the book of the training centre for Coloured cadets, I want to place on record the fact that the centre was not a total failure. As I said, we achieved a 70% success rate. We must therefore pay tribute to the people who served there. They performed an important and very difficult task in difficult circumstances. Initially the centre was not geared for training, and that was perhaps a mistake. That mistake has now been rectified and the centre has been closed. We are now seeing to the technical and other training of Coloured children and the Coloured youth. I do not want to broach the matter of the report of the committee of the CRC again. I think we should rather leave it at that, except to say that the people who gave evidence before the committee were not the most well-behaved youths one could encounter in a society. They were usually those who had committed offences. That was perhaps the report’s shortcoming, viz. that the committee did not also speak to those people who attended the centre and derived great benefit from doing so. However, the centre has not existed for almost two years now and I think we might as well close that book now.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill which is now before the House contains certain amendments to the Companies Act, 1973. In terms of section 18 of that Act it is the task of the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law established in terms of that section to make recommendations to the responsible Minister concerning amendments to the Act.

The proposed legislation was also published in the Government Gazette of 23 January 1981 for general information and comment.

The proposed amendments to the Companies Act are concerned on the one hand with the activities of the Companies Registration Office and on the other hand with the activities of the offices of the Masters of the various divisions of the Supreme Court.

I now want to deal with some of the most important principles contained in the Bill, and I shall begin with the proposed amendments to the Act concerned which have a bearing on the activities of the Companies Registration Office.

In terms of the existing provisions of the Companies Act, 1973, certain powers have to be exercised by the responsible Minister and certain duties have to be performed by him. Some of those powers and duties are of such a nature that they should not be exercised or performed at the ministerial level because in many cases they are of an exclusively administrative nature.

Therefore it is deemed desirable that the responsible Minister be relieved of the performance of duties which do not involve any questions of policy. Perhaps I should mention an example by way of illustration. The Act provides, inter alia, that when a court has ordered the affairs of a company to be investigated, the responsible Minister must appoint an inspector or inspectors to conduct the investigation and to report to him. The choice of an inspector and his appointment are not matters of policy.

The advisory committee was therefore asked to consider suitable amendments to the Act in terms of which the Registrar of Companies would be authorized to perform certain duties presently allocated to the responsible Minister. It is expected that the amendments to the Act which the advisory committee has recommended in respect of this matter may lighten the Minister’s task in terms of the Act. In terms of the proposed amendments, the Minister is not completely relieved of the exercising of the powers and the performance of the duties concerned, because he will still have to decide which powers and duties allocated to him by the Act may appropriately be exercised or performed by the Registrar and what conditions should be imposed in this respect. Although the powers have been delegated, the Minister remains responsible for the proper administration of the Act.

Furthermore, I want to mention that although companies registered in terms of the Companies Act are mostly operated for gain, certain non-profit-making associations may in terms of section 21 of that Act be incorporated as companies limited by guarantee. Certain international non-profit-making associations have branches in the Republic. The associations I have in mind have their headquarters abroad, and some of them are registered in the country in which their headquarters are situated. The Van Wyk De Vries Commission recommended that the Companies Act should also provide for branches of foreign associations to be incorporated in the Republic. However, this recommendation of the said commission has not been implemented up to now. I want to emphasize that there is no statutory provision at the moment in terms of which any non-profit-making association is required to be incorporated in terms of any law. However, the local branch of an international association sometimes feels the need to curtail or break off its relations with the international association. In the past, special legislation had to be passed in order to provide for the incorporation of such a branch as a body corporate in the Republic.

The local branch of an international association recently made representations to the Government concerning its status in the Republic. The representations concerned were considered by the Advisory Committee on Company Law and the committee recommended that the Companies Act be amended to provide for the local branch of an international association which complies with certain requirements to be incorporated in terms of section 21 of that Act as a company limited by guarantee. In this Bill it is proposed that the committee’s recommendation be implemented.

In terms of the existing provisions of the Companies Act, a company may have one shortened form of its name registered. However, there are companies that would prefer to have a shortened form of the literal translation of their names registered in the other official language. Since the Act in its present form does not provide for such registration, representations in this connection were considered by the advisory committee. In view of the fact that there is a need for such registrations, the advisory committee recommends that the Act be amended to provide for this. In order to implement the recommendation of the advisory committee, it is proposed in the Bill that six sections of the Act be amended.

The existing provisions of the Companies Act do not expressly prohibit the issuing of bearer debentures by any company. For the purposes of the Act the term “debenture” includes debenture stock, debenture bonds and any other securities of a company, whether constituting a charge on the assets of the company or not.

Certain local companies find it useful to raise money abroad for their business enterprises by means of issuing bearer debentures. The issuing of bearer debentures by a company is presently complicated by the fact that the Companies Act requires the names and addresses of the holders of debentures of a specific company to be entered in that company’s register of debenture holders.

This matter was also considered by the advisory committee, and it recommended that the Companies Act be amended in order to make it clear that the issuing of bearer debentures by a company is not prohibited by that Act, subject to any provisions to the contrary in any other Act.

Although it is proposed in the Bill that the recommendation of the advisory committee be implemented, I want to emphasize that bearer debentures may not be issued locally by a company without the authorization of the monetary authorities.

In so far as the proposed amendments to the Companies Act contained in this Bill affect the activities of the Companies Registration Office, I also want to mention that certain amendments are being proposed to the provisions relating to the particulars that have to be entered in the company’s register of directors and officers in respect of the auditor of a company, and the circumstances under which a change in the composition of a firm of auditors shall constitute or not constitute a casual vacancy in the office of auditor of a company.

At the moment, the Act does not provide that the Companies Registration Office should be notified of a change in the name of a firm of auditors while the firm is holding the office of auditor of a company and the change of name was not accompanied by a casual vacancy in this office. However, it is important that the correct information concerning the name of the auditor of a company should at all times be available in the file of the company in the registration office.

This matter, too, was considered by the advisory committee, and it recommended that the provisions of the Act with regard to a firm holding the office of auditor of a company be improved.

The committee also recommended that the Act should provide, among other things, that the auditor of a company should notify the company concerned on a prescribed form of the particulars which are being entered on the company’s register of director and officers in respect of that auditor and of any change in those particulars, and that the company should, after making any entry in the register concerned in respect of its auditor, lodge with the Registrar a return in the prescribed form.

I may add that the Act presently lays down that when an entry is made in the register of directors and officers of a company, a return reflecting the current contents of the register must be lodged with the Registrar. The prescribed form and the prescribed return with regard to an auditor of a company will be prescribed by regulation. The intention is to prescribe a simple return with regard to particulars of the auditor of a company, to be lodged with the Registrar.

†I have already mentioned that the proposed amendments to the Companies Act embodied in the Bill under consideration relate, on the one hand, to the activities of the Companies Registration Office and, on the other, to the activities of the offices of the Masters of the various divisions of the Supreme Court. I propose to turn now to the lastmentioned amendments.

I must also add, however, that those amendments have a bearing on certain provisions of chapter XIV of the Companies Act relating to the winding-up of companies and, in particular, in so far as the relevant provisions pertain to the voluntary winding-up of a company.

The recommendations of the standing advisory committee on the matter concerned stem from deliberations by the committee over several years. Judging by the Supplementary Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Companies Act, the so-called Van Wyk de Vries Commission, the provisions of the Companies Act, 1926, relating to a members’ voluntary winding-up of a company were not free from difficulties.

If it was proposed to wind-up a company voluntarily in terms of the Companies Act, 1926, and it was intended that the winding-up had to be a member’s voluntary winding-up of the company, the directors of the company were required to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Master for payment of the debts of the company within twelve months from the commencement of the winding-up.

The security had to be furnished prior to the date of the meeting at which the resolution for the voluntary winding-up of the company was to be passed.

In certain circumstances the Master could dispense with the furnishing of security. Furthermore, the 1926 Act specifically provided that, if security was not furnished or dispensed with, the winding-up is for purposes of that Act referred to as “a creditors’ voluntary winding-up”.

The Van Wyk de Vries Commission states in its report that apparently security was sometimes not furnished or dispensed with prior to the date of the meeting at which the resolution for the voluntary winding-up of the company was proposed.

According to the Commission, when security was presented to the Master after the passing of the resolution, the whole procedure was irregular and invariably another type of winding-up had to be followed.

In view of the provisions of the Act, presumably, the procedure followed was called a creditors’ voluntary winding-up of the company.

Now the Commission recommended that, and the Companies Act, 1973, presently provides that, in the case of a members’ voluntary winding-up of a company, the relevant security has to be furnished or dispensed with within twenty-one days from the passing of the resolution to wind-up the company voluntarily.

However, presently it also happens that, although a members’ voluntary winding-up of a company is intended, sometimes security is not furnished or dispensed with, as required, within the prescribed period.

Furthermore, the Act presently provides that a voluntary winding-up of a company may be a members’ voluntary winding-up in certain circumstances, and shall be a creditors’ voluntary winding-up in certain other circumstances.

A voluntary winding-up of a company has in the past been deemed and presently also is deemed to commence at the time of the passing of the resolution authorizing the winding-up.

However, it is claimed that the Master does not know whether a company is in voluntary liquidation when a resolution for the voluntary winding-up of that company is not lodged with him and what the position is if the resolution is lodged but does not comply with the requirements either for a members’ voluntary winding-up or for a creditors’ voluntary winding-up.

The standing advisory committee has recommended that certain adjustments should be made to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1973, relating to the voluntary winding-up of a company so that the difficulties experienced with those provisions may be removed.

Firstly, the Committee recommends that a voluntary winding-up of a company should, in terms of the Act, be authorized by its members only by special resolution.

Secondly, the Committee recommends that the Act should provide that a voluntary winding-up of a company shall commence at the time of the registration of the special resolution authorizing the winding-up and that the Registrar of Companies should forthwith after registration of such a resolution transmit a copy thereof to the Master concerned.

In passing, I would mention that, when any Court makes an order relating to the winding-up of a company, the Registrar of the Court is in terms of the Act required, without delay, to transmit a copy of the order to the Master.

Thirdly, the committee recommends that a special resolution for a creditors’ voluntary winding-up of a company should expressly state that such winding-up is intended and that, in order to be valid, the resolution should have been registered in terms of the Act.

Fourthly, the committee recommends that a special resolution for a members’ voluntary winding-up of a company should expressly state that such winding-up is intended and that, in order to be valid, the resolution should have been registered in terms of the Act and, prior to registration of the resolution, security should, as presently required by the Act, have been furnished or dispensed with.

Finally, the committee recommends certain other amendments to the provisions of the Act which relate to a voluntary winding-up of a company and which stem from the proposed provisions which I have just enumerated.

It follows that, when a special resolution for the voluntary winding-up of a company is lodged for registration in terms of the proposed provisions, it will be incumbent upon the Registrar of Companies to establish whether the resolution should be registered.

The Companies Act, 1973, presently requires the Registrar to refuse registration of a special resolution, except upon order of court, among others if the resolution appears to be contrary to the provisions of the Act.

In the case of a special resolution for a members’ voluntary winding-up of a company, the Registrar would refuse to register the resolution, unless he is satisfied that security has been furnished or dispensed with as prescribed by the Act.

When the Master concerned receives a copy of a resolution for the voluntary winding-up of a company from the Registrar, he will know that the relevant company is in voluntary liquidation, and it will also be clear from the copy of the resolution whether a members’ or a creditors’ voluntary winding-up of the company will be followed.

Presently, the Act requires that a copy of the resolution for the voluntary winding-up of a company shall within the prescribed period be lodged with the Master together with, firstly, in case of a members’ voluntary winding-up, a copy of a further resolution passed at the same meeting nominating a person or persons for appointment as liquidator or liquidators of the company; and secondly, in the case of a creditors’ voluntary winding-up, two certified copies of a prescribed statement as to the affairs of the company.

Should a copy of a resolution nominating a person or persons for appointment as liquidator or liquidators not be lodged with the Master concerned together with a copy of a resolution for a members’ voluntary winding-up of a company, the Master is presently not empowered to appoint a provisional liquidator of the company.

It is proposed in the Bill under consideration that the position be rectified so as to empower the Master to appoint a provisional liquidator when no liquidator is in office.

Under the proposed provisions of the Act, the company in respect of which a special resolution for its voluntary winding-up has been passed, will still be required to lodge with the Master concerned, a copy of that resolution together with the nomination for liquidator or the statement of affairs, as the case may be.

Furthermore, under the proposed provisions of the Act, should the Master concerned receive from the Registrar a copy of the resolution for the voluntary winding-up of a company, it will not be necessary for him to await the lodging with him by the company of the documents which in terms of the Act it is required to lodge. The Master concerned may immediately proceed with the appointment of a provisional liquidator, whether or not the winding-up of the company concerned is a members’ or creditors’ voluntary winding-up.

In the case of a creditors’ voluntary winding-up of a company, the Master would be required to call a meeting of creditors of the company and a meeting of members of the company for the purpose of nominating a person for appointment as liquidator or liquidators of the company.

Should the Master concerned in the case of a members’ voluntary winding-up of a company, appoint a provisional liquidator, the members of the company would be able to nominate a person or persons for appointment as liquidator or liquidators of the company, by resolution taken at a meeting convened for the purpose.

Apart from the proposed adjustments, in certain provisions of the Act relating to the winding-up of a company, to the reference in those provisions to other sections of the Act, the Bill under consideration also contains adjustments to those provisions to make it clear that certain consequences which flow from a voluntary winding-up of a company take effect only as from the registration of the special resolution authorizing the voluntary winding-up.

*Mr. Speaker, I believe that the amendments to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1973, which were recommended by the advisory committee and which are being proposed in this Bill will noticeably improve the implementation of the Act in practice.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech in the Second Reading was actually longer than the Bill itself. It was a very full explanation, but we on this side of the House—and I think I speak for the NRP as well—would appreciate it if the hon. the Deputy Minister could let us have a copy of his speech before he delivers it as it does make things considerably easier.

The most interesting thing about this particular speech is, of course, by whom it was made. The hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism introduced this Bill himself but he is not here to handle the Second Reading debate. I wondered whether, in fact, he is having more problems in Piketberg than he expected and thus has to be there for a considerably longer period of time than he originally estimated.

The Bill is basically one that should be discussed in the Committee Stage. We have one or two minor problems in regard to only two clauses of the Bill and, as these objections can be raised at the Committee Stage, we will reserve what we have to say until that time. I should therefore like to tell the Deputy Minister that we on this side of the House will be supporting this amending legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central for his support of the Bill. In the light of the detailed explanation that has been given of the basis of this Bill, it is not necessary to go into it. However, I may just point out briefly that this Bill seeks to do three things in particular: firstly, to meet certain needs that have arisen in practice; secondly, to simplify and streamline procedures of the Companies Act; and, thirdly, to bring about legal certainty in respect of certain aspects.

A need has arisen in practice for a provision whereby a literally translated shortened version of the name of a company can be reserved and registered. Another example is that local branches of international non-profit-making associations can now be registered in terms of the proposed section 21A. This can afford such an association the opportunity of obtaining more local autonomy. Another example is the specific recognition of the validity of bearer debentures. In practice there is a need for greater clarity and certainty in this connection.

This Bill will also result in a simplification and streamlining of procedure. As far as this is concerned, there are in the first place the duties of the Minister. Clause 2 authorizes the Minister to delegate some of his powers to the Registrar. There is no reason why the Minister should not have that power in this specific case. He remains the responsible person and he can always withdraw the delegated powers. In addition, these powers are largely of an administrative nature.

In this connection, the hon. the Deputy Minister referred in his speech to section 258(1) of the Companies Act, in which provision is made for the appointment of inspectors to investigate certain companies after an order to this effect has been issued by a court. There is no reason why the Minister should not delegate this power, since the court has already decided on the matter. The same applies to section 259, in terms of which he may instruct an inspector to investigate a subsidiary or holding company as well. The same applies to sections 261 and 263, in terms of which the Minister may prescribe how the inspector must submit his report. The same applies to section 272, in terms of which the Minister may appoint a co-auditor for a company. He does this at the request of 100 members of the company concerned or of the holders of one-twentieth of the issued shares of such a company. In other words, he once again has to act in terms of a resolution, so it is not necessary for him to give effect to it himself.

In the second place, there is the streamlining with regard to the winding-up of a company, especially with the appointment of the provisional liquidator. The Master may appoint a provisional liquidator immediately after having been notified of the registration in terms of section 200. He does not have to wait until he has been notified by the creditors and until they have complied with certain requirements. This is a considerable improvement.

Finally, this Bill also promotes legal certainty, especially with regard to the winding-up of companies. At the moment the Act provides that the winding-up commences when a resolution for winding-up has been passed. However, when the prescribed requirements are not met after such a decision has been taken, there is uncertainty about whether the company concerned is in fact in liquidation and whether it is going ahead. The Bill now provides that the winding-up commences when the winding-up is registered. So there can be no doubt about whether the winding-up has commenced and whether it is going ahead.

In all these respects, this Bill will effect great improvements. I therefore support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in making his Second Reading speech the hon. the Deputy Minister discussed the Bill and its provisions in great detail, and I therefore do not intend to go through the Bill clause by clause. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the provisions contained in the Bill are the result of the deliberations of the advisory committee, and they are the people who have to face the day to day problems that are encountered in the implementation of the Companies Act. After studying the Bill, we do believe that the Act is now being made more streamlined. We believe that the Bill is introducing certain improvements.

I should just like to refer briefly to clause 2 which is to empower the hon. the Minister to assign to the Registrar of Companies certain powers and duties, as the hon. the Minister may determine. About five or six sections of the Act are listed. The hon. the Deputy Minister said this was necessary in order to lighten the hon. the Minister’s burden, and I can see the reasons for that. I therefore think that this will be an improvement.

I do feel, however, that we have a great deal of legislation on our Statute Book, and someone has to ensure that all this legislation is correctly implemented. I therefore want to take this opportunity this afternoon of drawing the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention to a major article in the Business Times of the Sunday Times dated 6 September 1981. The article, under the headline “The law must impose heavy penalties on unscrupulous company promoters”, deals with the implementation of the Act. I should like to quote, from this article, a section of the Companies Act—

This is section 166(1) of the Companies Act, No. 61 of 1973, which is under discussion at the present time. The article goes on to say however—

This is the point I want to make to the hon. the Deputy Minister—

I appreciate that this is not a provision that is before us, but it is the principle I want to talk about here this afternoon. We do have before us, in clause 17, the provision that all consents and notices should be issued on prescribed forms. I just want to draw to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention—and I shall give him a copy of this article—that there are certain people who are ignoring the provisions of the Act. As far as this problem is concerned, I do sympathize very much with the hon. the Minister and the Registrar of Companies, but I do believe that it is a problem that should be drawn very pertinently to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention. I suggest that if we pass laws, surely to goodness the reason for having passed the laws is that the provisions contained in the said laws should be complied with. Otherwise why have laws on our Statute Book at all? Having said that, however, let me tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we shall be supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend dealing fully with the matter raised by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, except to tell him that I do not think that in his criticism he takes cognizance of the distinction between a private and a public company. I would be very hesitant, in any case, about accepting unreservedly anything that appeared in the Sunday Times.

”Companies play a very important part in our economic community, so the measures that regulate them have to be adjusted from time to time so that they may function in an orderly manner. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has already explained in detail, this amendment to the principal Act of 1973 is being made at the advice of the standing advisory committee. Therefore I do not intend to deal with every amendment in detail. However, I want to refer briefly to a few of them, because I believe that we have important amendments here which will also greatly facilitate and streamline the practical implementation of the principal Act and will solve certain problems which have arisen in practice.

The first important amendment is the one which authorizes the registration of a non-profit-making foreign company in terms of section 21. There is a specific need for this amendment, especially in the light of the increasing involvement of such associations at the international level. Indeed, the position used to be that such an association could only be accommodated by means of private legislation. One thinks, for example, of the Bible Society of South Africa Act, Act No. 15 of 1979, which, with all due respect, constituted an unnecessarily protracted procedure.

The second important aspect is the registration of a shortened form of a translated name. In the light of the fact that competition on the market is making it increasingly important today that a company and its products should be associated with one another, the registration of a shortened translated name under which a company is often known will enable the company to use its marketing mechanism much more effectively.

Another important amendment is the one which will now make bearer debentures possible. From the nature of the case, bearer debentures have the advantage of anonymous ownership and of being more easily transferable. They are in general use in several Western countries when a company wants to form capital. In respect of foreign investment in particular, in view of the sensitive international atmosphere with regard to investment in South Africa, this will enable local companies to obtain funds much more easily, while the exchange control regulations will still provide adequate protection and control.

A further amendment which I believe to be important is the streamlining—this has already been referred to—by means of a shortened and simplified procedure for transmitting information concerning the position of, for example, office-bearers and other members of a company. This streamlining is provided for in clauses 15 and 17. It will result in a welcome reduction in administrative work.

In the light of this, however, I believe that the changes proposed by clause 16 will not necessarily improve the existing position. Therefore I shall move at the Committee Stage that clause 16 be rejected.

A final important amendment which I want to single out is the one relating to the procedure in the case of a voluntary winding-up of a company and the placing on an equal footing, in appropriate cases, of a creditors’ winding-up with that of members’. This introduces a simplified and fixed procedure and also rectifies an existing deficiency, as the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated. The provision that a resolution for liquidation has to be registered with the Registrar before it becomes legally effective is a very important provision which will provide adequate protection for creditors. With this in mind, I shall also propose during the Committee Stage that in clause 23, which lays down the period within which a company has to notify the Master and notification of the resolution to register has to be published in the Gazette, a definite period of 14 days be substituted for the present “forthwith”.

The amendments proposed by this amending Bill will greatly improve and facilitate the functioning of the principal Act in practice. In these times, in which the importance of the small business as a development instrument is being increasingly highlighted, this is to be welcomed. I believe that this process should be taken further, and that in respect of private companies in particular, the registration and administrative requirements should be further adjusted and simplified to make the advantages afforded by this form of participation in the economic process more accessible and cheaper for the small businessman. We on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to inform the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that the fact that I am handling the Second Reading of this Bill has nothing to do with the by-election in Piketberg. This legislation has been delegated to me and I am responsible for it.

*I wish to thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and his party for their support of the Bill. All the clauses have been carefully examined by the advisory committee. I have already made a very long speech, and I do not want to make another one. I also want to thank the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

†The hon. member brought to our notice the problem of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act. It is not relevant in this case, but I shall request the advisory committee to look into this problem.

*It is also very clear that the hon. members on this side of the House, the hon. member Adv. Schutte and the hon. member for East London City, have made a very intensive study of this legislation, hence the amendments they have proposed. I want to thank those hon. members for their support of the legislation and for the great diligence and interest they have shown, as well as the intensive study they have made of the legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The amendment is essential since the provisions of the Act in connection with external companies, i.e. the whole of Chapter 13 of the Companies Act, 1973, could be null and void if a branch of a single external company were to be incorporated in terms of the proposed section 21A. This actually entails an amendment of the definition which places beyond all doubt the legal aspect in respect of the relationship of the branch being incorporated to the parent company overseas.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting clause, not so much because of the clause itself but because of what has gone before in relation to the clause. This clause amends section 274 of the principal Act to bring about certain changes in terms of what constitutes a casual vacancy when there is a firm of auditors and not a partnership involved. What is particularly interesting on this occasion was that it so happened that section 274 of the Companies Act was lifted almost verbatim and transposed into the Co-operatives Bill, the Committee Stage of which we may be resuming later this afternoon. I noticed that section 274 had been taken out of that Act and transposed without this amendment having been made to it. It appeared to me therefore that there had been something of a breakdown in communications somewhere within the NP and so I took the exact amendment that appears on this clause in this Bill and I moved it as an amendment to the relevant clause in the Co-operatives Bill. Much to my surprise, Sir, a couple of hon. members in this House got up and shot it down in flames. I had, of course, not told them that this was an amendment that would be considered by the House at a later stage, an amendment by the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism himself. It was interesting to note that the hon. member for Ermelo had this to say—

Then, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries himself had this to say—

I found this particularly interesting because, as I say, it was an amendment that had been placed on the Order Paper to the Bill before us by the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. It would seem, therefore, that the one hand does not know what the other hand is doing within that party. I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries opposed the amendment simply because it had emanated from these benches. The NP did not really have all that much against it but the prime factor was that it had come from these benches and that was why they opposed it. I think that that gives us a very good idea of the viewpoint of that side of the House.

Now, Sir, let us look at this particular clause before us. What is the effect of it? The important amendment is the addition of paragraph (b) to section 274(2) and it provides that in the event of a majority of the partners of a firm of auditors resigning from that firm and joining another firm then, in terms of the amendment, the new firm of auditors which the majority of auditors have joined would then be deemed to be the auditors. There would be no casual vacancy. This does happen to a certain extent and we can see no problem with this amendment except for one small portion of it. In this regard I wish to pose the question: What if the auditors remaining behind—the minority of the original partners in other words—are the people particularly concerned with a company’s audit? What will the situation be in such an event? It will mean that if the company wishes that minority to continue auditing its books it will have to ask the auditing company to resign. Normally, these matters are handled very happily. One usually simply speaks to the auditors concerned and the auditors hand in their resignation. There is then a vacancy and the company appoints the firm it wishes to appoint. However, it may happen—and it has happened from time to time—that the auditors are not too happy to hand in their resignation. In such an event, for that company to be able to fire its auditors a very long-winded procedure has to be followed. Therefore, we on this side of the House felt that it would be a good idea to amend this particular clause further so as to bring about the situation where a mechanism existed whereby if the company concerned wanted the minority of auditors to continue doing its audit then there should be some procedure it could follow to bring this about.

At this stage, then, I wish to move the amendment to this clause printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The effect of this amendment will be that if the situation that I have outlined occurs, the company can approach the remaining auditors to stay on as its auditors. They can then approach the Registrar of Companies who can then give them permission to continue to be the auditors of that company. I think that our viewpoint is perfectly clear in this regard.

I must tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we have actually been in touch with people from the auditing profession in connection with this clause. They like the clause as it stands. They think it is an improvement in the law. We, too, think it is an improvement in the law, but we do suggest that this amendment be accepted by the hon. the Deputy Minister because we think it covers a problem which could arise. It will not necessarily arise, but it could arise.

One notes with interest that there is a further amendment on the Order Paper. I refer to the amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for East London City. The hon. member is apparently going to move that this clause be negatived. I would be very interested to hear what he has to say and what the hon. the Deputy Minister has to say in this regard, but I sincerely hope that the fact that an hon. member on that side of the House will move that the clause be negatived has nothing to do with the fact that we moved it in relation to the Cooperatives Bill and it was then turned down. I hope this has nothing to do with it, because if it has, then I think that matters are arranged in the wrong way in this House.

Mr. Chairman, Scipio once said ex Africa semper aliquid novi—out of Africa always something new. I did not think I would see the day that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central would move that the Government should interfere in the private sector to a greater extent than it already does. I suspect he probably felt safe because certain other hon. members of his party are not in this House at the moment. [Interjections.]

You are already mixed up; I thought I was going to make it better.

The aim of the requirements for the appointment of an auditor is not only to look after the interests of the creditors and the shareholders as well as those of the tax collector, but also, primarily, to ensure that the company can function in an orderly way. For this reason it is essential that at all times there shall be properly appointed auditors for the company to discharge the obligations laid down in the principal Act and to be held liable for doing so.

The appointment of an auditor by a company is in essence merely a private agreement between them and I do not think we should intervene in this matter. Nevertheless it must be ensured at all times that there is an auditor for a company, not only on paper, but able to do the work in practice.

Since the amendment embodied in clause 16 seeks to regulate the position by law and shall indicate the firm of auditors responsible in the cases of a change in partners of the existing appointed firm, it could however happen in practice—as a matter of fact, it has already happened—that the auditors’ firm appointed by law may not or does not wish to accept the appointment for a variety of reasons or is even unaware that they have taken over the appointment from the old firm. It could then happen that in practice the company is without an auditor until this deficiency is discovered and rectified. In the interim things can of course go wrong.

A company may also, as a result of a personal relationship between the auditors and the directors of the company, prefer and accept that a particular auditor who forms part of the minority of partners, should remain its auditor. Subsequently it may be found that this is not the case and in some cases it is not possible to rectify such a state of affairs without problems and embarrassment.

†The amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central does not solve this problem and would lead to unnecessary administrative work for both the company and the authorities. It also, by making the appointment of such an auditor subject to the Registrar’s approval, unnecessarily interferes with the right of a company to choose its own auditor.

*The present position as contained in section 274 of the principal Act is that, where a change in partners does not represent a material change in the particular auditors’ firm in that more than half of the partners remain, the partnership retains its appointment.

Where this is not the case, however, and more than half of the partners leave the undertaking, a casual vacancy arises of which, under the amendments now accepted, notice must be given to the company, which may then and is in fact required to appoint an auditor of its own choice. The procedure for such an appointment is now being made considerably easier by the amendment effected in terms of clause 15, by means of which provision is now made for the use of an abbreviated form instead of the longer and more complex form C29. I therefore wish to suggest that the existing position, as contained in section 274 of the principal Act, will now regulate the matter more efficiently in view of the amendments to the Act. Therefore we want this clause to be negatived.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the hon. member for East London City motivating his reasons for moving his amendment. There are two points I should like to raise in this regard.

Firstly, the hon. member suggests that if the majority of a firm of auditors should join another firm, a company’s audit might in fact end up in limbo because the new auditors would not know that they were the auditors. According to him this could create a problem. I should, however, like to tell the hon. member that I simply do not believe that our auditing profession would ever be guilty of such irresponsible conduct. I believe that one of the prime functions of an auditor is to know what the regulations are relative to the auditing of firms and relative to their responsibilities. If there are any auditing firms that are so irresponsible as not to know in terms of the law whether they are responsible for an audit or not, I believe it would be a very, very poor show.

Secondly, the hon. member for East London City suggests that the amendment moved by me does not cover the situation. He did not actually motivate that at all. Nevertheless, he then went on to say that he considered that I was asking the Registrar to interfere in the affairs of a private enterprise or of a private company. Nothing could be more incorrect. My amendment clearly states that the Registrar can only appear in this matter on the specific request of the company concerned and of the auditor. What could be clearer than that?

Why do you need his approval?

One would need that approval because in terms of this amending clause another situation would otherwise occur; that other situation being that the new firm of auditors would then become the auditors. The Registrar would then need to advise various people and make the amendment in his file on the company concerned in respect of who the auditors are, etc. There are a number of reasons why one obviously needs to involve the Registrar in this particular situation.

The very next clause also brings the Registrar into it, and we see no problem with that at all. Therefore, I do not really see that the hon. member’s contention that this is interference with private enterprise holds any water at all.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to make my party’s position on this matter quite clear. I have listened with great interest to what the hon. member for East London North and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central have had to say. As the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has already said, this argument began during the debate on the Cooperatives Bill. I believe that the leader of my party, the hon. member for Durban Point, made our position quite clear at that stage, when he said that what was being proposed then—and I also want to state that it applies to what is being proposed now—does interfere with the right of the company to choose. I believe that that is the point that we in these benches hold as the major consideration in this particular case.

It does appear, however, that there was perhaps not sufficient thought and discussion devoted to this problem before this amendment was brought before the House. I should therefore like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London City and to refer this back to the Advisory Committee for re-examination so that, possibly early next year, he can come to the House with an amendment which will correct the problem which, we believe, exists at the present time.

We will, however, be supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London City.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to express my support for the attitude adopted by the hon. member for East London City. I also want to point out the implication of the amendment as it reads at present. It is that the company itself does not have the contractual freedom to decide who will be its auditors and who will not. Now it must have the approval of the Registrar for this. I cannot imagine why.

I wish to suggest that there is no real need for the Companies Act to have detailed provisions for every possible and impossible situation as to whom the auditor must be when the auditor’s firm undergoes a change of partners. The company has the power to appoint its auditor and the existing section 274 is clear and concise and will cover all the circumstances in 99% of the cases. I wish to say that the amendment, even as it is set out in the amending Bill, will only cause difficulty and uncertainty. I also assume that the spirit of the amendment which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central moved, was that the proposed subsection (2)(b) could only cause trouble. For this reason I shall subsequently support the amendment of the hon. member for East London City.

Mr. Chairman, we have given a great deal of attention to this clause, and we also listened very attentively to the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. It is very clear that both sides of this House have anticipated the problem which may arise in the implementation of this proposed amendment. We understood that there could be a problem.

I think the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central makes the entire position far more cumbrous. I think the proposal of the hon. member for East London City that the section be retained as it stands at present, seen in conjunction with the amendments under clauses 15 and 17, which greatly simplify the notification procedure, is a good proposal. The hon. member Mr. Schutte also set out very clearly how we see this matter and therefore I am not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. We understand the problem as he understands it, but I think our solution, namely the proposal of the hon. member for East London City, is a much neater one and I am therefore prepared to accept it.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause negatived.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move an amendment to clause 17 in line 45 because this particular line is an example of the worst English that I have seen in a Bill for a number of years in that it states—

That is appallingly bad English and I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

By bringing about this amendment the clause will still have exactly the same effect as it is now printed. There is no real change in any meaning and it simply clears up the use of the English language. On the advice of the person who drew up this amendment for me, I wish to say that he also said that the thought that the Afrikaans usage in this particular clause could also be improved. Therefore my amendment applies in the Afrikaans language as well.

Mr. Chairman, we have given careful attention to this amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, and it may be that the English text is not good English, but as far as the Afrikaans text is concerned if one compares sections 215 and 276 of the principal Act, there may be a contradiction in respect of the same concepts contained in these two sections. This is purely a legal aspect and I want to quote what the law advisors had to say in this connection—

This is the proposal of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central—

As a result of this consideration I am therefore not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister quite clearly objects to the amendment on the basis of the Afrikaans translation. However, is the hon. the Deputy Minister prepared to accept the amendment to the English text of clause 17, because to have English of this nature would, I think, be more acceptable in the legislation of a banana republic than in that of a country which has English as one of its official languages?

Mr. Chairman, if the translation is acceptable, I would be prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment in that regard. We will have a quick look at it, and if possible, I will accept that part of his amendment. I therefore move—

Agreed to.

Clause 23:

Mr. Chairman, when a company is wound-up it is important that the interests of the creditors should be protected. To be able to do this it is inter alia necessary to ensure that all creditors shall be notified as soon as possible by way of publication in the Gazette that a specific company is being wound-up. It is therefore necessary for publication in the Gazette to take place within a specified time after the registration of a decision in terms of which the winding-up takes place.

I am having problems with the word “forthwith” because it does not meet the above requirement, as it does not set down a specific time. In view the legal interpretation attached to this word, it means that the company, as soon as circumstances allow, shall take the necessary steps in terms of the section. The period can therefore vary from case to case and the possibility of a creditor being prejudiced as a result of slowness or possibly even abuse by the directors of a company, is therefore obvious. If a fixed, reasonable period were laid down, it would be conducive to providing legal certainty, and would solve these problems should they arise. A period of 14 days would be reasonable under the circumstances and would also bring this provision into line with the other amendments contained in the Bill. I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This amendment is purely consequential and arises from the amendment to clause 23, which was agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the hon. member’s amendment since it is a consequential one.

I move as a further amendment—

This amendment is concerned with the regulations. In terms of clause 17 this Bill makes provision for a new form of registration. The date of this Act and the date of the registration forms must correspond and for this reason I move that “December” be substituted for “November”.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 (standing over):

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment in the English text moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central.

Thank you.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This is merely a consequential amendment arising from clause 16 being negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill before the House is the product of an open and straightforward effort to rationalize the legislative measures relating to the National Institute for Metallurgy, and nothing else. As hon. members will observe from the schedule of laws referred to in clause 20 of the Bill, the obvious way to accommodate any further substitution or deletion of obsolete designations, words, expressions and provisions was, in the first instance, to endeavour to consolidate the six laws relating to the Institute rather than to choose the perpetual amendment procedure and thus further complicate the existing statutory dispensation. These six laws have now been reduced to a single Bill, the layout of which is such that anyone would be able to arrive at the objective of the legislature and the correct interpretation of the various provisions.

I wish to give hon. members the assurance that, with slight exceptions of a technical or terminological nature, the Bill does not interfere with the existing statutory dispensation whatsoever. Principles and objects remain unchanged, and this includes the constitution of the controlling body, the period of office of its members and the provision for their remuneration and that of the staff appointed to assist the said body in the performance of its functions. Provision is, however, made in clause 12—as in the case of similar statutory bodies—for the payment of compensation to a staff member or, in the event of his death, to his dependents, in respect of an injury or disease which can be directly attributed to any activity engaged in in the course of his employment.

The only point which, to my mind, needs clarification, is the change in the name of the Act itself from the National Institute for Metallurgy Act to the Mineral Technology Act and the consequential transformation of the existing Board of Control of the Institute into a formal Council for Mineral Technology without any distortion of its present constitution. This is deemed necessary in order to avoid further confusion of the status and functions of the National Institute for Metallurgy with those of other institutions called institutes, for example, the various institutes of universities. Hon. members will appreciate that although the correction of such a terminological phenomenon appears to be of minor importance among the well-informed, it is often a meaningful step from the point of view of the general public. The law relating to the National Institute for Metallurgy is primarily aimed at the promotion of mineral technology, including research into the properties, composition, recovery, extraction, processing and utilization of minerals and mineral products. It follows, therefore, that the title of the Act should be brought into proper relation with the object of the legislation. The establishment of a juristic person, in the form of a duly constituted council, also has certain advantages, for example, with reference to the allocation and delegation of functions and the establishment of rights and obligations.

Apart from the normal process of rationalization and the modernization of certain terms and expressions, provision is also made in Clause 19 of the Bill for the delegation of ministerial powers to the Director-General or officers of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, provided that the Minister shall not be divested of any power so delegated and that he may set aside or amend any decision taken in the exercising of any power thus delegated.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his brevity.

You are going to be as brief, aren’t you?

Yes. There is an old saying that goes: “The king is dead. Long live the king!” We are now going to do away with the National Institute for Metallurgy and we are going to replace it with a council for mineral technology. I sincerely hope that this new council—the new king, in other words—will continue to serve South Africa as well as its predecessors. There is not, of course, only one predecessor. There are actually two predecessors of this new council for mineral technology. I say this because in 1965 the National Institute for Metallurgy replaced the Government Metallurgical Laboratory which was established in 1934. So it had a life of 31 years. Between these two bodies they have actually served South Africa extremely well. The original laboratory was established in 1934, as I have said, on the initiative of Prof. Stanley of the University of the Witwatersrand and Dr. Hans Pirow, who was then the Government Mining Engineer. In its 30-year history the laboratory had many successes. It was responsible for the development of a process for the production of vermiculite. It was also responsible for devising a method for the flotation of rock phosphates. This was proved feasible by the laboratory before Foskor was established. So it played its part in the development of our mineral resources in this country.

The objects of the institute—they continue to apply in the new Bill—are, firstly, to provide metallurgists with the best facilities for the development of methods to process minerals; secondly, to co-ordinate research with other bodies and to achieve closer co-operation between those bodies—perhaps we could have called this the Council for Co-operation and Development of Minerals—and, thirdly, to support research in mineral development. These objects, as I have said, will be perpetuated in the new council.

Perhaps the first objective is the most important one. This objective let me repeat, is to provide metallurgists with the best facilities for the development of methods for processing minerals. Personally, I have long felt—and I mentioned it in the debate on the hon. the Minister’s Vote—that we export too much of our mineral resource in this country in its untreated and raw form. We have these raw materials, and they are of great advantage to us, from iron ore to chrome and from manganese to vanadium. If we exported less in the form of raw material and more ferrous alloys, for instance, the benefits to this country would be enormous. Job opportunities would be created. Larger exports in terms of rands would occur. We would have real growth and a better standard of living. I think that anything the council can do to bring this about will be of incalculable value.

There are two small matters in the Bill which present us with minor problems. The first of these I just want to mention to the hon. the Minister and to the House. It is that in terms of this Bill we are giving the council the right to prospect or mine. The old institute also had this provision in it and we are aware that this provision was not abused. We do not of course believe that the council should do anything on a large scale in terms of prospecting or mining or should compete in any commercial sense. We know that this has not been done in the past and we are sure that it will not be done in the future, but I think it deserves mention in the House.

The second small problem we have concerns clause 6. We intend moving an amendment to this in the Committee Stage. We think that the constitution of the council could be improved upon. Clause 6(l)(b)(v) reads as follows—

So one has an either/or situation there: Either one is going to have a natural scientist or one is going to have an engineer, or perhaps, if one is lucky, one can combine the knowledge of both fields in one person. We think that this would be improved by providing for an additional member, so that one can be chosen for his knowledge of engineering and the other for his knowledge as a geologist and, particularly, as a metallurgist. “Metallurgy” defines it even closer than “geology”.

We believe that this Bill deserves support from the House and we certainly intend supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to support this Bill. It has in fact always been the case in the past that when the activities of this laboratory have come up for discussion, Parliament has approached the subject with enthusiasm. Irrespective of their party affiliations, speakers have always commended the work of the Institute.

I should like to say something about the historical development of the laboratory and also mention contributions which have been made by the Institute in the sphere of mineralogy.

As the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central mentioned, the laboratory was established in 1934 at the University of the Witwatersrand. The Mineral Research Laboratory, as it was called, was under the control of the University of the Witwatersrand and the former Department of Mining supplied the necessary finance.

The laboratory started on a very small scale, but even during the Second World War it was making important contributions towards South Africa’s war effort. At that stage the contributions were, inter alia, in respect of tungsten, phosphate and carborundum.

In 1944 the name of the laboratory was changed for the first time, viz. to the State Laboratory for Metallurgy. In 1966 the name was changed again to the National Institute for Metallurgy. In these post-war years this laboratory concentrated on the problems of the burgeoning uranium industry and carried out pioneering work in this sphere.

The change in designation in 1966 may be seen as a recognition of the prominent role played by the laboratory since its inception and at that stage the laboratory also became an autonomous statutory body. It continued to be accommodated at the University of the Witwatersrand, but in 1976 the need for new premises arose. The institute then moved to Randburg. It cost the State approximately R20 million to establish new facilities and laboratories. Those facilities are really modern, and the laboratories are well equipped. They are in fact among the best-equipped laboratories of this kind in the whole world.

Furthermore, I want to say something about the part which this laboratory has played since its inception in the field of extraction metallurgy as well as in other fields in this country. The general background against which the contribution of the laboratory must be seen comprises the specific conditions in the field of minerals in this country, viz. the fact that we have vast mineral deposits in this country, but that the ore content is exceptionally low. The extraction of the minerals from the ores presents exceptional problems. Consequently we needed a laboratory which carried out research to enable us to obtain the minerals from the ores. The laboratory did excellent work in the sphere of the extraction of precious metals, ferro-alloys, electrochemistry and in the sphere of analytical techniques of importance in respect of minerals.

It is important to mention that the Institute co-operates very closely with the industry. It is integrated with the industry and aimed at increasing productivity in the industry. There are two kinds of project in particular which the Institute undertakes. The one consists basically of short-term contracts, and the other may be described as consisting of long-term projects. The short-term projects are undertaken at the request of the industry in order to develop certain processes. The long-term projects, for which there may not always be sufficient people and time available, revolve around basic research which is really the lifeblood of the industry of the future in this field.

I should like to enumerate a few of the practical achievements of the Institute in respect of the extraction of uranium and gold, minerals in the platinum group, as well as minerals which are found in the North-Western Cape, such as silver, copper, lead and zinc.

The first I want to point out is the ion-exchange technology which has been developed for the extraction of minerals such as uranium and gold. This is not only utilized in South Africa, but has also been marketed abroad by a South African company.

The second I want to point out is one of the most important developments in the history of gold reclamation in South Africa. It is the development of the so-called carbon-and-pulp-technology in which activated carbon is used in the reclamation of gold, instead of an expensive filtration process previously used. This enables one to construct a less costly plant for the extraction of gold and also allows cheaper operating costs than the filtration process. In practice, this will most probably also enable one to increase the percentage of gold reclaimed from the ore. At present the industry is planning the construction of plant amounting to several hundred million rands which will be put into operation with the next few years.

Furthermore I want to point out the work that has been done to exploit minerals of the platinum group. It is well known that our country is richly endowed with these minerals and that there are considerable reserves in the Merensky Reef. However, there are also a great deal in the so-called UG-2 ridge of the Bushveld igneous complex, but the exploitation in that ore body required special technology. Hon. members will know that it was recently announced that the National Institute for Metallurgy had developed a process whereby to extract these minerals from the aforementioned ridge. The economic value of a development of this nature is tremendous. It results in the quantity of exploitable ore being pushed up by approximately 150% and in terms of present rand values the potential benefit of this is in the order of R300 billion.

I refer, too, to the process being used in the North-Western Cape to exploit lead, zinc, copper and silver. This was developed by the Institute at the request of a group of companies. A major American company is involved in this. I am told that it is one of the largest companies in the world and that it specifically preferred the National Institute for Metallurgy to carry out this task for it instead of an American undertaking. This is most definitely a feather in the cap of the Institute.

I want to point out another example, this time outside the field of extraction metallurgy. It is an example of the computerized control of processes which was developed by the Institute in the manufacture of ferroalloy products. The institute has succeeded in placing the quantities of iron, coal and chrome which are introduced into a submerged-arc furnace under computer control and in addition, having the operating temperature of the submerged-arc furnace controlled by a computer with a view to optimal conditions. By means of this development the production of such a furnace has been doubled in practice.

As a result of all these achievements, and others to which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also referred, the Institute enjoys very high prestige in the outside world. Foreign scientists are only too willing to come and spend their sabbaticals here, and our own scientists are often invited to international congresses and symposiums to make contributions.

An achievement of this nature not only increases our gross national product, but also instills confidence in our own mineral industry in the foreign investor.

In conclusion, I want to point out that the Institute is active in the sphere of international conferences as well. This, too, is something which contributes towards the prestige of a country. Over the past few years they have introduced two new regular international conferences. I want to emphasize here that these conferences enjoy very strong support in the outside world. They are the “International Ferro-Alloys Congress” and the “International Conference on Applied Mineralogy in the Mineral Industry”. What I personally find even more impressive is the fact that both the secretary and the chairman of these congresses were chosen by the foreign scientists from the ranks of the Institute.

I have spoken briefly about the milestones along the path of development and certain achievements of the National Institute for Metallurgy. The discussion of this legislation today is certainly another milestone along the path of development of this body, which is a source of great national pride. For me personally it is a great privilege to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I believe that Parliament is fortunate indeed to have a member such as the hon. member for Pretoria East to participate in a debate such as this this afternoon. I do believe that he has made a valuable contribution by informing hon. members what the existing National Institute for Metallurgy Act has meant for South Africa and her mineral development over the past years. I agree with the hon. member that the value of the development that has taken place is indeed immense. May I say, Sir, that I am quite sure that in time we shall see the value of our mineral development grow to even greater heights. I certainly do not intend to try to compete with the hon. member for Pretoria East because I believe that he has a doctorate both in applied mathematics and nuclear physics which is way out of my field, and so I bow to his superior knowledge and experience in this regard. However, Sir, I shall say that after studying the Bill we in the NRP feel that it is an improvement on the existing Act and we shall be supporting it.

I should, however, like to say to the hon. the Minister that after studying the actual functions of the council I would like to have the assurance of the hon. the Minister that the council that is referred to here will spend most of its time actually promoting development but leave the work itself to private enterprise. It should rather use its powers to encourage original thought among private enterprise. I believe that the hon. the Minister himself should exercise control over expenditure and, as I have just said, we would prefer to see the council being active in promoting research and development but leaving the actual work to the private sector. I say this because if one studies the provisions of the legislation dealing with the functions of the council one sees that the way is left open for the council itself to become directly involved. While I am quite sure that occasions do arise when this may possibly be necessary it would be preferable to our way of thinking for this to be done by private enterprise rather than by the council.

Having said that, Sir, as I have already intimated, we shall support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. members who participated in this debate and all the parties in the House for their support. I should like particularly to thank the hon. members for Pretoria East and Port Elizabeth Central for the resumé they gave of the proud history of the Institute for Metallurgy. The position is in fact that South Africa has a very proud track record in this field and that one can say with confidence that in this institute we also have another world leader.

*In particular I want to thank the hon. member for Pretoria East most sincerely for also focusing the spotlight on specific spheres in which this institute has made exceptional contributions. In my experience in this department it is true that this institute is in fact a body of world stature, that information is requested from far and wide, that knowledge is acquired from this institute and that it has world-wide influence.

†Having said that, I should like to turn now to some of the particular issues raised by various hon. members. Firstly, with regard to the question of prospecting by the Institute, I can give hon. members the assurance that this will be done for research purposes only. The fact of the matter is that once one has drilled a hole in search of something one is prospecting. Then, by law, one must be allowed to do so. In other words, we may have problems here. There are, however, no hidden intentions, and this provision will be used sparingly, as was the case in the past.

*The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also referred to the question of beneficiation. I want to give him the assurance that we are keeping a vigilant eye on this aspect and that, on the Mineral Policy Committee in particular, we are instituting a specific investigation into an overall approach to beneficiation. However, the fact of the matter is that it is only half true to say that we have the minerals and that we should beneficiate them before exporting them. Circumstances such as world capacity must be taken into consideration. Of course the question as to whether it would be economical in a specific sphere, or whether the strategic interests of South Africa nevertheless require our having to undertake it even though it would not be entirely economical, is also important. However, the hon. member may rest assured that our objective is to ensure the maximum degree of beneficiation in South Africa in a sensible and balanced way.

With regard to the possibility of enlarging the board, I prefer to explain my standpoint in this regard during the Committee Stage, when the hon. member moves his amendment in regard to the matter.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to the functions of the board, and also pleaded that private enterprise should be urged to undertake the actual work. This Institute does indeed operate quite often on the basis of partnership with private enterprise, and frequently private enterprise approaches the National Institute for Metallurgy with the request that the institute should undertake certain projects on their behalf. A modus operandi between private enterprise and the National Institute for Metallurgy has already been established. This is really, I believe, a very good example of what can be achieved in the field of co-operation.

*The need for a measure of centralization of applied research is something we must realize. We cannot duplicate everything in this country. We simply do not have the necessary labour resources to duplicate everything. That is why it is in this very sphere that there has been such a measure of co-operation between the private sector and the National Institute for Metallurgy that it results in a saving for both of them, that funds for certain research projects are being obtained and that the information and the results of research flow back to the private sector for practical use.

Having said that, I believe that I have touched briefly on all the matters which were raised by hon. members, and in this tranquil late hour of this Friday afternoon I should like to express my sincere gratitude to the stalwarts who showed their interest in this specific debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I referred to this clause during the Second Reading debate. I am afraid that I have to state that I have somewhat of a problem with the amendment which I have not yet moved. Regrettably, the effect of my amendment will be that the number of members will be increased. This, of course, would cost the State additional funds. It is true, we know, that no hon. member other than a Minister is allowed to move an amendment which will involve the State in additional expenditure. I agree that basically this is fair. There is, however, an alternative. That alternative happens to be that the hon. the Minister can move such an amendment. If it comes from the hon. the Minister himself it can be accepted.

Therefore, I should firstly like to address myself to the hon. the Minister and ask him if he will not move the amendment which appears in my name on the Order Paper. The effect of that amendment, as the hon. the Minister well knows, will be that we will have to appoint one member by reason of his knowledge of engineering and another member by reason of his knowledge of geology. That is the sum total of it, and I hope the hon. the Minister will give it his consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I examined the motion of the hon. member very carefully and I want to thank him for it. I can see that he wishes to be constructive about this matter, but after very thorough consideration I have decided not to give effect to this idea of his. I also want to give a brief summary of my reasons for this. In the first place, I do not think that one should make a council unnecessarily large. In the second place, the hon. member will note that two officials of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs serve on the council. To give the hon. member an idea of the situation, for the present, one of the two serving officials is the Deputy Director-General who, before becoming the Deputy Director-General of the department, was head of the Geological Survey Division, a man with a doctor’s degree in geology. Consequently, if a geologist is required, it is possible for us to appoint a geologist from the department’s representatives on the council. However, there is also far closer interaction between this institute and the department in all its ramifications. As the hon. member knows, we have a Geological Survey Division where we provide highly specialized geological services. The council will always be free to utilize these resources at its disposal if it needs advice or wishes to have an input in respect of geology. That is why I think that we should rather keep the body as small and streamlined as possible and that we should save the Government expenditure, since data and information on geology can readily be obtained if required.

Finally, I just want to point out that in terms of clause 6 as it stands at present, it would be theoretically possible to appoint three geologists to the council, viz. the two representatives of the department in addition to the physical scientists to whom reference is made in subsection 1(b)(v). That is why I prefer not to do this, but I thank the hon. member for the trouble he has taken. I want to give him the assurance that we also consulted the present management and that they, too, indicated that they really did not require additional members.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the hon. the Minister’s argument. I think it is fair enough. However, there are just one or two points I should like to make in this regard. Firstly, to have someone actually serving on the board and to have somebody giving advice to the board are two very different things. I do not think that to have somebody giving geological advice from the department to the council would actually be as effective as having a geologist on the council itself. However, I do accept totally the fact that in the person of the department’s representative on the council at the moment we obviously have a person who is very well qualified in terms of geology. I accept that that is the case and I think that it does to a large extent overcome the problem that I have. Nevertheless I should like to recommend to the hon. the Minister that in the event of a situation arising where the departmental representatives were not necessarily geologists that he should review the situation because what I am interested in seeing is that there should be a geologist. If a geologist is not supplied by the State, then I think the hon. the Minister should look at it again.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The aim of this brief and simple Bill is to ratify the increase in occupational disease benefits which was announced earlier this year and which were paid as from 1 April this year.

Hon. members will recall that during the part appropriation certain alleviatory measures were announced for social pensioners, among others. It was also envisaged on that occasion that similar treatment be considered for occupational disease beneficiaries.

Persons who are employed in the mining industry and who contract occupational diseases which may be ascribed to their working conditions there, receive compensation for them in terms of a special dispensation as embodied in the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act which is enforced by my department. This dispensation in terms of which compensation is paid has for the past two years been the subject of an in-depth investigation by the Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for Occupational Diseases, the so-called Nieuwenhuizen Commission. This commission recently completed its investigation. Its report is still being edited and unfortunately it will not be possible to table the report during the present session. As soon as the contents and recommendations of the report are generally known, interested parties such as employers’ and employees’ organizations will be afforded ample opportunity for comment, after which the Government will review the dispensation in terms of which compensation is paid to occupational disease sufferers. Consequently even at this stage I want to invite hon. members to avail themselves of the opportunity of submitting to me any standpoints they may have. I consider consultation with interested parties in connection with this matter to be of vital importance, but it will of necessity take up even further time before amendments, if any, may be made to the existing statutory dispensation.

Against this background it would not be fair to withhold an increase in compensation from occupational disease beneficiaries and it has been decided, as an interim measure, to grant a 12% increase in compensation as from 1 April this year. Permit me, too, to take this opportunity of drawing hon. members’ attention to the fact that occupational disease beneficiaries are also enjoying the benefit of a 10% increase in compensation granted as from 1 July last year, and that benefits have thus in fact increased by more than 22% in the period from July last year up to and including April of this year. If it is also borne in mind that the basic benefits as well as the additional cash amounts are free of any form of taxation, I am of the opinion—and I think hon. members will agree with me—that the Government has, with due allowance for the availability of funds, contributed its share towards accommodating those workers in mines and works who suffer from occupational diseases.

In addition, the Government, in cooperation with employers and employees’ organizations, is prepared to consider those recommendations in the Nieuwenhuizen report which may project a more favourable or more just compensation dispensation and, if it is possible to achieve consensus in that regard, to submit them to this House in the form of legislation. Until such time, I am of the opinion that the status quo with regard to compensation ought to be maintained.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome this Bill. Adjustments of this nature are made very necessary because of inflation, and almost every year during the session the House has to spend a certain amount of time on this particular legislation. Indeed, I think this has happened six or seven times during the past eight or nine years.

One of the problems is that there is a discrepancy between the provisions of this Act and the provisions with which the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has to deal. I am aware of the fact that there is overlapping. I also know that this has been brought to the attention of the Nieuwenhuizen Commission and I am very glad that it has now reported on this matter. On 9 June 1980 (Hansard col. 8546) the hon. the Minister stated—

I therefore hope that during the course of the next session we will see this legislation. I believe it is necessary. There are a lot of aspects that need to be looked at. I am sure the Nieuwenhuizen Commission will have done a good job of this and we look forward to having their recommendations tabled and to see what the result is.

I feel there is another point we have to mention in regard to this legislation. That is that if one keeps increasing the benefits which the fund has to disburse, then of course, it immediately comes to mind. What is the strength of the fund? If one continually increases the benefits, obviously a greater annual drain is being made on the fund. The hon. the Minister said that during the past two years benefits have been increased by 22%. This of course will draw 22% more money out of the fund. I think we need a little more information about this fund. We should like to know whether the fund is adequate, whether there is enough money, whether we can bear this increase. I think the big question is whether we are funding liabilities of the past out of current contributions. I think these questions need to be answered. A question in this regard was in fact put to the hon. the Minister on 9 June 1980. He said on that occasion that we could discuss the matter much more profitably under his Vote the next year, which is this year. Unfortunately, because of the fact that this is a very short session, in the time that was available to us as the official Opposition to make these points, we simply could not cover all the subjects and decided rather to do it in this particular debate. I hope that the hon. the Minister can give us some more information. However, we certainly will be supporting this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize on behalf of the hon. member for Randfontein who unfortunately had to leave early. I trust the hon. the Minister will understand.

I am very pleased to hear from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that they support this Bill. This legislation is given attention in this House almost every year. We trust that when we have the Nieuwenhuizen report at our disposal next year, very interesting legislation will be brought before this House. It is as well that these benefits and special awards are being adjusted not only due to the inflation problem, but also because the persons involved need the benefits. I think one need only go down a mine once to know what the exposure of his body to these conditions really means to a mineworker. For that reason it is a very good thing that this House should look after the worker, in the sense that very regular and careful attention be given to this matter. We must take off our hats to those men who are prepared to go and earn their living every day in the depths of the earth. For that reason it is a pleasure for me to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be very brief. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that we will be supporting this measure. I do not think any hon. member who may have had a constituent who has suffered from one of the diseases which one can contract in a mine and who has come to him for assistance, could oppose such a measure which seeks to bring about an increase in the benefits and special awards to such sufferers.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central raised the matter of the fund itself. In this regard I should like to refer to clause 1(1)(c) which provides that in the case of a special award referred to in section 115 of the principal Act, such special award shall be further increased by an amount which the authority referred to in that section may in its discretion determine in accordance with the availability of moneys in the fund. I think this is the very matter which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has raised. Maybe the time is coming when we shall have to have a second look at the money that is available in the fund, because, as I said at the beginning, those who are suffering from such diseases do need every consideration we can give them.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members who participated for their participation and for their support of the Bill. They did not really express any criticism. Two aspects were brought to the fore. One was the possibility of an entirely new dispensation which may arise out of the Nieuwenhuizen Commission report. However, I cannot pledge that we shall introduce new legislation specifically during the next session. This would depend on when the process of negotiation, to which I referred in my introductory speech, can be completed. However, I can assure hon. members that we want to clear up this matter finally as soon as is humanly possible. We shall make haste to initiate and finalize the negotiation process and if this gives rise to legislation, we shall try to submit it to Parliament as soon as possible.

This brings me to the question of the fund. I did not have prior knowledge of the fact that this subject would be discussed and do not have the documents in question at hand, but I just want to say that comprehensive information on the fund is submitted to Parliament every year in the form of a proper report. Furthermore, a report has indeed been tabled by the Compensation Commissioner. I can only assure hon. members that the fund is as sound as a bell and that it is supplemented by contributions from the employers as well as the State. In addition, precautionary measures have been taken in the rules of the fund to ensure that there will always be adequate reserves, i.e. that a certain portion of the fund is reserved. Consequently there is proper control, the fund is as sound as a bell and its organization and structures are such that hon. members really need not be concerned about the ability of the fund to make payments. As in the case of the increase in social or other pensions, one is dealing here with the fact that if it becomes necessary to increase them, the funds will simply have to be found by increasing the amounts. The only alternative would be not to grant the increase to the people and simply to allow them to lapse into a state of misery. That is why ways of ensuring the availability of funds in order to grant increases have always been found in the past and, as long as this dispensation is valid, money will be found for this fund in future if it becomes necessary to grant increases.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Mining Rights Bill, 1967, provides for the granting of prospecting and mining rights in respect of precious metals, base minerals and natural oil and the regulation of matters directly related thereto, such as control of the use of the surface of land on which a mining lease has been granted or which has been proclaimed a digging for precious metals and/or base minerals. I might just mention that much of the land in the Transvaal on which gold and various base minerals are being mined today were proclaimed as diggings as far back as the previous century, and that due to the importance of mining for the economy of the country, even since that time mining legislation has been so phrased as to stimulate interest and thereby promote the mining industry. This point of departure was borne in mind in connection with certain new measures which are incorporated in the amending Bill at present before this House.

Hon. members will note that the majority of proposals in the Bill are aimed at substituting metric measures for certain other measures, rounding it off and substituting or deleting certain obsolete designations, words, expressions and provisions in the Act. These proposals are self-explanatory and I shall leave them at that.

However, there are proposals in this Bill that justify elucidation and it is to these that I wish to confine myself for the most part.

Section 19 of the Act relates to land the mineral rights to which have been reserved to the State in the title in question. In such a case the landowner may himself prospect or may grant someone else the right to prospect and obtain mining rights from the State by way of notarial deed. When such a notarial deed has been registered in the Mining Titles Office, it is binding on the successors in title of the owner. The section further provides that before registration of such a notarial deed which is entered into after the commencement of the Act, the Government Mining Engineer must determine whether the terms and conditions embodied therein are detrimental to the interests of the State, as holder of the mineral rights, or not. The object of this provision is to ensure that the financial benefits which the landowner negotiates for himself are not so excessive that the State, as holder of the mineral rights, will not also be able to claim its rightful compensation without affecting the viability of the mining enterprise. I can say for the information of hon. members that these provisions have been implemented over the past 14 years to good effect, but that in recent times a loophole in the existing measures had been encountered. This loophole is due to the fact that the Act does not make specific provision for perusal by the Government Mining Engineer of an amending deed or deed of cession of such a registered notarial deed before registration. The result is that there is no machinery to prevent the terms and conditions of such a registered notarial deed from being changed to the detriment of the State. All that is now being proposed in clause 20 of the Bill is that the provisions of section 19(2) of the Act also be made applicable to a deed of amendment or cession of such a registered notarial deed.

In terms of section 20 of the Act, every person who drills a borehole for the purpose of prospecting for precious metals or base minerals must within a certain period give full and correct information to the mining commissioner as to the precise site of the borehole, its depth, the formations passed through and the widths and assay values of any ore bodies intersected. In terms of provisions of the mentioned section 20, this information may not be published or shown to any person not being an officer of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs unless the person on whose behalf the borehole in question was drilled, has consented thereto in writing. These provisions of secrecy also apply to borehole information disclosed to the department in terms of the provisions contained in a prospecting lease for natural oil. An official or employee of the department who publishes this information in conflict with the legal provisions is guilty of an offence and liable to punishment on conviction.

Mr. Speaker, the information obtained by the department by virtue of the provisions of section 20 has thus far only been used for official purposes, for example, for the purposes of geological cartography or to prevent towns, etc., from being established or planned on mineralized land. However, it is felt that in certain circumstances this information ought to be made public. The publication of this information could, for example, prevent a person from incurring unnecessary expense by drilling a borehole near a place where a borehole has already been drilled by someone else where the results do not justify an additional borehole in the immediate vicinity. On the other hand, the publication of this information might contribute towards promoting the tracing of minerals.

The situation is that the drilling of a borehole involves major expense, and boreholes are sometimes drilled by the same person over a wide area, in which case the cost can run into many millions of rands. It may also occur that a certain mineral may be traced in a borehole but that the prevailing price of that mineral does not justify further expense or investigation at that stage. However, it is possible that over a period of years the position may change and the person can return to that borehole and continue with his investigation. In such a case the publication of the borehole information at too early a stage could cause incalculable financial harm to the person who drilled the borehole in the first place, in that other people with this knowledge at their disposal could take up options on the land in question and adjoining land with a view to speculating with or hawking their rights. Hon. members will therefore understand that the interests of the person who drills a borehole must be taken into account in any measure concerning the publication of borehole information. However, there are also cases of boreholes having been drilled 40 years ago and even further back, where the companies in question no longer exist and there is no one else who is interested. We therefore have these two problems: On the one hand, it is in the interests of the country and in the interests of would-be prospectors that the borehole information be made available, and on the other hand, the people who incurred the expenditure have a vested interest in this regard. We must reconcile these two interests. Accordingly, we have entered into negotiations with the Chamber of Mines in an effort to solve this problem. The Chamber has no objection to the proposals contained in clause 11 of the Bill. The most important changes to section 20 proposed in clause 11 of the Bill are, therefore, the provision made for the publication in certain circumstances of borehole information after 15 years have elapsed since the completion of any borehole.

Hon. members will note that ample provision is being made for the protection of the interests of the person who incurred the expenditure or of another person who has an interest. Ample provision is also being made for representations in this regard and for an appeal to the Minister and the courts. The information which may be released will be made available by way of the “open file system”. What this amounts to is that an interested person may obtain the information at the office of the Director of the Geological Survey. The provisions envisaged also provide that where the borehole information points to the incidence of source material, the permission of the Atomic Energy Board will have to be obtained before publication of such information. A need has also arisen to adapt section 20 in certain other respects as well. For example, it is proposed that a person who intends to drill a borehole must furnish additional details concerning its location so that at a later stage, better control of the submission of borehole information may be possible. It is also proposed that a person who drills a series of boreholes within a small area is exempted from the obligation of furnishing the required information in respect of each borehole since this would give rise to duplication. For the most part, such boreholes are drilled to test for profitability or to check for faulting of the ore body.

A further adjustment proposed is for provision to be made that borehole information relating to the incidence of coal may also be disclosed to officials of the Fuel Research Institute. At present, such information does have to be provided to that Institute in terms of Act No. 35 of 1963, but due to developments which could arise from investigations relating to the Institute at present in progress, it is necessary that this adjustment of Section 20 of the Mining Rights Act be effected.

†The amendments proposed in clause 13 and certain other clauses of the Bill, also require elucidation. At present, a mining lease surface rent in respect of certain mining leases is payable by the holders thereof to the Mining Commissioner at the rate of 30 cents per month for every morgen or fraction of a morgen included in the lease area, and that rent is paid over to the owner of the land or the person who is entitled to receive that rent in terms of a deed registered in a deeds registry. The equivalent of the said rent in the metric measure is 35 cents per hectare. Due to the rise in the price of land over the past decade, representations have lately been made for an increase of the mining lease rent. After due consideration of the matter it is proposed that this rent be increased to 50 cents per hectare, in other words, an increase of 43%.

However, it is the position that an increase of the mining lease rent, as proposed in clause 13, will be applicable to future mining lease contracts only. The mining industry, which has been consulted in this connection, has shown understanding for the position of the owners whose land is included in existing mining leases, and due to the positive attitude adopted by the mining industry, I propose that the increase of the rent be extended to existing mining leases. Such an extension will be effected by the amendment of section 78 of the Act, as proposed in clause 32 of the Bill.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Bill goes beyond the mere increase of rent. It also provides additional benefits for owners in respect of the use of their land for mining purposes or purposes incidental to mining, as for example for shaft equipment areas, housing, rock dumps, slimes dams etc., which can no longer be utilized for grazing purposes. It would to my mind be only reasonable that owners receive extra compensation for the actual occupation of their land by mining companies for purposes connected with the mining operations. I therefore propose, Mr. Speaker, that a new principle be introduced in the Act, namely, the payment of a surface rent for the sole benefit of the owner of the land in respect of those surface occupations to which I have referred. This rent will also be payable in respect of all existing occupations irrespective of whether there has been waiver of the statutory right to surface rent or not. There are instances however, though not many, where farmers were fully compensated for the use of their land for purposes incidental to mining, as for instance in the case of land reserved for the exclusive use of the owner, the so-called owner’s reservations, but required by the mine for purposes connected with its mining operations. In these cases the compensation received by the landowner is usually equal to the market value of the land and they must therefore be excluded from the payment of the proposed surface rent. The proposals regarding the payment of the surface rent are embodied in clause 34 of the Bill in terms of which a new section 90A will be inserted in the Act. Subsection (10) of section 90 of the Act provides for the payment of a surface rent to the landowner in certain other circumstances and it is the intention to retain this provision. However, in order to bring the provisions regarding the payment of surface rent under one section, it is proposed that the said subsection (10) be deleted from section 90 and be re-incorporated in the new section 90A.

Hon. members will observe that a surface rent of R2 per hectare per month is proposed in the case of slimes dams and cemeteries for the burial of mine employees, while in the other cases of surface occupation by mines a rent of R1 per hectare per month is proposed. The reason for this differentiation, Mr. Speaker, is that the owner is practically deprived permanently of the use of his land for farming purposes where it is being used or has been used for a slimes dam or a cemetery. Because we are dealing here with existing slimes dams and cemeteries, it would hardly be ethical to compel mining companies at this stage to buy the land as in the case of new slimes dams and cemeteries which I will deal with presently. In the case of other surface uses ample legal provisions exist in terms of which a mining company can be compelled to remove buildings and other surface structures. For obvious reasons, a further differentiation regarding slimes dams and cemeteries is proposed, namely that the surface rent will remain payable for the duration of the mining title and not simply until the surface right permit is abandoned, as is proposed in the case of other surface uses. Provision is, however, made for exemption from the payment of the surface rent in cases where slimes dams or the remains of bodies have been removed, but the owner of the land will be consulted prior to the granting, if warranted, of the exemption. The purpose of the consultation in this connection is to establish beforehand whether the land is again suitable for farming purposes.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on the subject of slimes dams and cemeteries, I wish to elucidate a further new principle which is proposed in clause 33 of the Bill. As I have already indicated, land on which slimes dams have been deposited or which has been used as a burial place, can practically never again be used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is proposed in clause 33 that subsection (5A) be inserted in section 90 of the Act, in terms of which a mining company which has applied for permission to use land not belonging to it for the purpose of a slimes dam or a cemetery, can be directed to purchase that land.

Hon. members will observe, however, that in terms of the proposed provisions, it will be left to the owner to decide whether he wants to sell his land or not, and should he decide to retain ownership thereof, he will receive the surface rent at the rate of R2 per ha per month, as proposed in clause 34 of the Bill. Provision is also made that the mining commissioner may direct the applicant to purchase that portion of the land not included in its application, if the Director-General: Agriculture and Fisheries has expressed the opinion that that portion will be too small to ensure the owner thereof a reasonable living. Provision is also made at the same time, however, to prevent mining activities in which millions of rands may have been invested, being hampered as a result of protracted negotiations. In other words, it should not be allowed that the granting of the necessary permission to the mining company to use the surface of land for a slimes dam or cemetery is delayed for an indefinite period.

I think that hon. members will agree with me, that most of the major amendments proposed in this Bill, will be to the benefit of farmers or landowners and that they should welcome these measures, some of which have the effect of amending the terms of existing mining leases entered into between mining companies and the Government. I am thankful to be able to place on record that the proposed new principles and the additional expenditure which will result therefrom, have been accepted by the mining industry and that the South African Agricultural Union has expressed its satisfaction and appreciation of the renewed efforts to improve the position of owners of mining ground.

I may add that according to a survey made during June 1981 there were at that stage, several applications for slimes dams under consideration by mining commissioners. These applications involved areas of land, not owned by the mining companies concerned, of altogether approximately 1 054 ha in extent. It is likely that some of these applications will have been disposed of before the measures proposed in clause 33 of the Bill regarding the purchase of land required for the depositing of slimes can take effect, and to cater for these few cases, special provisions are embodied in clause 58 of the Bill. In terms of this clause, a landowner will have three months within which to apply to the mining commissioner to consider directing the holder of such a permission to purchase the land in question. These provisions will be applicable to permissions in respect of slimes dams granted during the period 1 June 1981 to the date the Amendment Act is published in the Government Gazette. The date 1 June 1981 was decided upon because the applications concerned had not been disposed by that date, whereas the mining industry had already accepted the principles embodied in clause 33 of the Bill well before the said date.

*I trust that this Bill will bring peace and a better balance between the rights of people who practise mining and those of the owners of the surface of the land and in this way will bring about greater harmony.

Mr. Speaker, little did I think when I was elected to Parliament that I would be debating in this House matters such as boreholes, slimes dams and cemeteries: [Interjections.] Very obviously this Bill has been very thoroughly canvassed with both the mining industry and the South African Agricultural Union and they have agreed to these measures. Primarily, if anything in this Bill affects the mining industry adversely and they have agreed to it, then we would be very much out of order if we were to do anything other than to support the legislation.

There are a couple of very small points that I should like to mention. The first one relates to the value placed on land in terms of leasing it for mining purposes. I think that to set a figure could create some sort of a problem. Of course, we do appreciate the fact that there is an improvement in this Bill, an improvement in that the people who have to make this land available will receive more money for it. That is definitely an improvement with which we agree. There is, however, a point which, I believe, is worth mentioning to the hon. the Minister in this regard. That is that all land is of course not worth the same amount of money. Some agricultural land, for instance, is far more valuable than grazing land, etc. Therefore, to peg the rental of this land at one fixed amount regardless of whether that land is prime irrigable agricultural land or grazing land is a matter which does create some doubt in my mind. I am not sure whether that is the entirely correct thing to do. I wonder—and the hon. the Minister can reply to this—whether it would not in fact be advantageous to have a figure based on valuation rather than on the ultimate purpose for which such land will be used. I do offer this as a debating point, and I should be very interested to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say about it.

The second point I want to make relates to boreholes. I should like to recommend too that every borehole should have a windmill on top of it.

Hear, hear!

Finally, I state our support for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has already agreed with us so often today that I think it is becoming something of an embarrassment to him already. [Interjections.] In any event, on this occasion I want to express my gratitude towards him for his support of this Bill. Furthermore, I just want to point out briefly to him that the value of the leasing of the land to which he referred, does not actually make any difference to the value of the land itself. As the hon. member ought to understand, what is at issue here is actually the nuisance value, if I can call it that. In actual fact it has nothing whatsoever to do with the minerals themselves.

As long as the hon. member does not begin to prescribe to us what specific types of windmills should be put on the boreholes, I have no objection to that proposal of his either.

This is legislation that is of considerable practical value and importance to us. Without wasting time unnecessarily now, I nevertheless want to emphasize a few aspects of it for the sake of making it clearer to hon. members. Of course, mining legislation is generally complicated legislation, for the simple reason that the possession of mineral rights in South Africa is not uniform. However, the fact is that the substantive principles contained in this Bill before the House, I are very simple. Some of them are even new, as the hon. the Minister correctly pointed out. We find one of these new principles in clause 11.

In terms of the existing Act, every prospector is obliged to provide information concerning prospecting boreholes to the Mining Commissioner concerned, particularly with regard to rock formations and the analysis of the minerals encountered in such boreholes. However, this information is restricted to the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs and fuel research unless prospectors should agree otherwise. The new principle is that the Director of the Geological Survey can publish that information after the 15 years following the completion or suspension of the drilling have elapsed. However, to prevent this being done in an injudicious way or established interests being adversely effected by it, the Director must in the first place announce his intention to do so in the Gazette and in the second place grant a period of six months in which people can register objections, and in the third place there is also the right of appeal to the Minister, to the Supreme Court and to the Appeal Court. This is a new principle, and it is a good one.

In terms of clause 13 the existing mining lease fees are now being increased from 30 cents per morgan to 50 cents per hectare. This applies to the entire proclaimed territory.

The new additions to this are contained in clause 34, viz. the R1 per hectare per month with regard to those areas which are really being utilized for mining purposes, and R2 per hectare per month for areas that are being utilized for slimes dams or cemeteries for mine workers. Another important provision in this regard is contained in clause 32 which provides that increased leasing fees are also applicable to existing contracts as from the date on which the legislation that is now before the House, is promulgated. Therefore, it is in fact retroactive. It is a tremendous concession which the mining companies have made because legally, in terms of the existing contracts, they did not need to agree to that.

Another new principle is contained in clause 33, which obliges the mine-owner to purchase the entire area if the property which is being mined, becomes too small for the owner to derive a reasonable living from it, due to the land being taken up by mining operations. This measure also contains adequate protection for the landowner in the establishment of the purchase price by agreement and if an agreement cannot be reached, arbitration takes place which is based on the expropriation laws of the country.

This draft legislation is good legislation for two reasons. In the first instance, the legislation prevents knowledge and information that is important to the country and which may even be of radical importance, from being concealed for an unspecified time or for ever. In the second instance, the proposed legislation maintains a favourable balance between mining and agriculture. This is important because these two industries are probably the most important sectors in the South African economy. However, both of them are extremely vulnerable due to unstable natural and world conditions. That is why both of these industries must be viewed with great circumspection.

I am therefore pleased to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that the NRP will be supporting this legislation. As the hon. member for Namakwaland has said, anyone who has studied the details of this Bill can see that a great deal of consultation has taken place. As the hon. the Minister himself has said, in respect of the rentals charged for both surface and sub-surface land being used for mining purposes, both the Chamber of Mines and the S.A. Agricultural Union have been consulted, they have discussed this matter and they have come to some agreement. As the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said, it is not for us to argue their case here this afternoon. Having said that, we shall be supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my sincere gratitude for the support from both sides. I should like to thank the hon. member for Namaqualand for a well-motivated supportive speech testifying of insight and understanding. I think he made a neat summary of the real gist of the legislation.

†The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central asked: Why not differentiate—I am putting this in my own words—in rental on the basis of the value of the ground? With regard to the normal 50 cents per hectare that is proposed by the Bill, the hon. member must realize that that relates to land that is still available to the farmer to use. In other words, if it is land with a very high potential then he can still reap the benefits of that potential, but if it is land of a lesser value and does not have the same potential, then obviously that will be the position whether there is a mine or not. His argument may be more applicable in the case of a slimes dam or a cemetery where the land is really tied up, but in that case he must realize that we now have a discretion to direct the mining company to buy the land. Therefore I would suggest that we regard that problem as part and parcel of the factors that we shall have to consider in deciding whether the Minister will direct the mining company to buy or not. Obviously, if it is extremely valuable land the effect will be much greater on the owner of the land if a part of it is tied up than it would be if it is useless land lying idle. Therefore that will be taken into account under such circumstances.

*With that I think I have given the hon. member an adequate reply, and that he will now fully realize that we shall deal with the problem sympathetically.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 33:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This is merely an editorial improvement. The term “reasonable” is a recognized juridical concept, whilst “decent” in a statutory sense is not really a recognized concept.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 58:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) In the English text, on page 36, in line 34, to omit “last-named” and to substitute “principal”.
2. (2) on page 36, in line 49, to omit “decent” and to substitute “reasonable”.

These amendments merely effect a linguistic improvement.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.